Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

[Tom Goreau]

ON FEBRUARY 2, 2025, THE NORTH POLE IS MELTING

TEMPERATURE ANOMALY, FEBRUARY 2 2025 

Figure from Climate Reanalyzer.org: https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=t2anom&ortho=8&wt=1

The scale at right shows the air temperature anomaly 2 meters above the surface for February 2, 2025 in degrees Celsius. The North Pole was nearly 30C above average temperature in the middle of winter!

FEBRUARY 3 2025:

The fact that satellite data showed temperatures reached above melting at the North Pole at the height of Winter is so astonishing, and significant, that it should have been headline global news, yet it passed entirely without notice!

This event was caused by a long tongue of exceptionally warm water that reached the North Pole from the Atlantic Ocean. 

On February 3 that tongue of warmer water retreated slightly from the North Pole.

Is nobody looking?

Or are the media and the public so obsessed with fake crises manufactured by politicians in order to monopolize publicity that they no longer care about the existential crisis unfolding before their eyes?

Or are the Orwellian news media totally censored?

 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance

Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.

Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK

37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)

 

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392

 

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734

 

Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change

 

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

 

It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think

 

Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away

 

“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer

 

“The Earth is not dying, she is being killed” U. Utah Phillips

 

 

 

 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 3, 2025 at 7:37 AM
To: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>
Subject: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/science/how-a-swiss-us-study-challenges-what-we-know-about-the-gulf-stream/88789245?utm_source=multiple&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=bundle-front1_en&utm_content=o&utm_term=wpblock_teaser-bundle 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxoagP6rtDD5wdKWGuvjVVr%2BxLZoo70mKTrAmugBf4DONQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

What’s incredible (surely to more than me) is not that politicians never cared, that’s given, but that NOBODY seemed to notice, not  even those who are paid to: where’s the World Meteorological Organization?

 

It’s the “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow the world may end” mentality at the collapse of the Roman Empire all over again, for those who remember history.

 

They are proud that they don’t even need to know, and Invincible ignorance makes them perfectly blissful……

 

From: Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 3, 2025 at 9:20 AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>, EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

Tom

 

The problem you describe, media ignoring Arctic melting, is one of mass psychological delusion. All matters global warming are now placed within a political framework that somehow allows climate change to be totally ignored. 

 

The triumph of Trump is understood as the defeat of woke. Climate change is categorised as just an ideological obsession associated with the promotion of diversity, inclusion and equity. Now that all things DEI can be ignored by decree, so too can the whole of science.

 

This dangerous fantasy of resolute ignorance is certainly a very short term moment in politics due to the Trump honeymoon. I remain of the view that an underlying rationality within Republican ranks can be reached by targeting the commercial interests of major conservative industries. But this needs to be handled with care.

 

Ignoring global warming is bad for business. Therefore a message will be constructed that says to key Trump acolytes, yes we are right to ignore carbon as a woke ideology, as Trump insists, but we can repackage climate change as bad weather, which Musk can manage with new sunlight reflection technologies. This is a tactical response to the disastrous mentality that allows winter Arctic melting to fail to make the news despite its portent of existential collapse.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip 🌷 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB49948EF93BA1C7E824E5411ADDF52%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[H simmens]

Hi Oswald,

I agree with your observation that the coolness that the IPCC exhibits towards cooling is a fundamental roadblock and challenge. 

And since the IPCC decided not to devote any of its special reports to cooling or restoration the world has to wait until close to the end of the decade when AR seven comes out. 

But of course that timetable is totally inconsistent with the need for urgent action. 

Therefore I would suggest what is needed is a two track strategy: 

First to encourage and support the publication of as many peer reviewed papers as possible that treat cooling objectively. In the absence of a large body of favorable papers to cite the IPCC will once again pour cold water on cooling in the next round. 

Secondly and more urgently is helping to organize an international campaign to create a high level commission or body to comprehensively, objectively and equitably examine the evidence that ERA could be sufficient to preserve civilization as we know it and to recommend what would presumably be a triad based approach along with aggressive adaptation to minimize climate extremes, tipping point activation and civilizational and ecosystem collapse. 

I previously made this proposal and invoked the Brundtland Commission as one possible but certainly not the only model for such an effort. 

Does anyone have a better idea to establish the international legitimacy for DCC which is a prerequisite for any consequential deployment? 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 3, 2025, at 11:34 AM, 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Hi Mike,

 

our Swiss newspapers are actually full of the Arctic story today. So, no, it is not true that media are not paying attention to this, at least not here. The problem is in fact, that nobody believes the story of possible cooling. And that is in fact not a media problem. Media report what established science tells them, and established science tells the eternal tale of ERA. And that story is, well, reported multiple times and … boring.

 

We have to concentrate on IPCC. Without them changing the ERA story, it won’t happen, neither SAI, nor EAMO, nor OIF nor anything…

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

Von: 'Michael MacCracken' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Februar 2025 17:13
An: Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

Dear Robert--Having talked to a prominent science reporter (employed by Science magazine) some years back, I'd suggest that the problem is that what is happening is not really news in their mind--it has already been reported. Basically, even the science reporters (or at least his) is that they are not responsible for educating the public by providing context for what is happening--they are responsible for reporting new findings and the Arctic melting is just not a new finding (or at least that is how the view expressed would apply to the news that you cite).

The effect of this viewpoint is that long-term, relatively slowly evolving problems will just not get the coverage that those thinking over the long-term (to them, perhaps a few years to a decade and more) think is essential in order to deal with the problem. So, just like the focus on investment seems to be mainly on the next quarter, the long term approach (which Warren Buffet has become wealthy on) is not going to be the focus of their attention. Trump and Musk are taking this to an extreme, not seeming to pay attention to focuses other than the next day's headlines.

So, no real need to get conspiratorial here--what else matters than living day to day?

Regards, Mike

 

On 2/3/25 9:20 AM, Robbie Tulip wrote:

Tom

 

The problem you describe, media ignoring Arctic melting, is one of mass psychological delusion. All matters global warming are now placed within a political framework that somehow allows climate change to be totally ignored. 

 

The triumph of Trump is understood as the defeat of woke. Climate change is categorised as just an ideological obsession associated with the promotion of diversity, inclusion and equity. Now that all things DEI can be ignored by decree, so too can the whole of science.

 

This dangerous fantasy of resolute ignorance is certainly a very short term moment in politics due to the Trump honeymoon. I remain of the view that an underlying rationality within Republican ranks can be reached by targeting the commercial interests of major conservative industries. But this needs to be handled with care.

 

Ignoring global warming is bad for business. Therefore a message will be constructed that says to key Trump acolytes, yes we are right to ignore carbon as a woke ideology, as Trump insists, but we can repackage climate change as bad weather, which Musk can manage with new sunlight reflection technologies. This is a tactical response to the disastrous mentality that allows winter Arctic melting to fail to make the news despite its portent of existential collapse.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip 🌷 

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 10:02 pm, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:

ON FEBRUARY 2, 2025, THE NORTH POLE IS MELTING

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CABgHNnTK33z1svmtbobUNo7LzckCgA%3DkKziJbwa8JXuy5mrRUw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/94e44ea8-1841-41d4-9011-0ba7003db4fb%40comcast.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/000401db7659%247b9c2840%2472d478c0%24%40hispeed.ch.

[H simmens]

Hi Oswald,

I assume you meant to address your note to me and not Ron. 

There is nothing immutable about scientific timetables. My president established a mission to land on the moon by the end of the decade and the necessary science and technology resources were then mobilized to make it happen. Had that goal not been established it might’ve taken another decade or two to do the science and technology necessary. 

A commission or farsighted world leader or two could announce after intensive review of the existing evidence that it is necessary - invoking the precautionary principle - to deploy safe and effective cooling by the end of the decade in order to minimize further suffering, death and collapse. 

And X million dollars will be made available to the scientific and technology community to propose and field test the safest and most effective portfolio of cooling techniques by say 2028 with deployment beginning by 2030 or 2032. 

Are you saying that we can’t or shouldn’t adopt a top down mission driven approach as I describe above to avoiding existential collapse of civilization and the natural world as we know it? 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 3, 2025, at 12:22 PM, Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch> wrote:



Hi Ron,

 

yes and no.

 

Yes to many (peer reviewed) papers which describe a consistent strategy out of the mess we are in. You will do your SAI, we are working on the EAMO…

 

No to a timetable which is dictated by urgency. Science is a very slow and thorough process. It just does not happen fast, no matter what urgency. Science will eventually embrace the right strategy. It will probably take another 10 years. In the sense of GW that’s way too slow. Right. But hectical jumping around does not help, it will not make it faster. Do the hard work. Very detailed, very long, very slow.  

 

No to trying to invoke a grand commission. It won’t happen. Let’s concentrate on things which are possible. This one is not. Not yet.

[H simmens]

Hi. Robert,

Climate change as a whole may be a wicked problem but deploying cooling on an urgent basis to minimize suffering death and collapse appears to be much more straightforward and much less wicked. 

There does not appear to be any insurmountable technological or economic barrier to deployment. The arguments and evidence in support of cooling versus ERA are overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of cooling. 

The cost benefit ratio is upwards of 1000 to one or more according to Robert Tulip and the Royal Society. Stephan Salter calculated that the annual debt service cost for a fleet of MCB vessels sufficient to cool the climate would be approximately what the security costs were for the Glasgow COP alone. David Keith has made similar calculations regarding the cost benefit ratio for SAI  

Therefore the challenge has been and remains finding effective ways to convey how dire our present condition is, how much worse it will get even with the most optimistic projections for emission reductions and how promising several cooling modalities singly or in combination may be for stabilizing and lowering temperature increases. 

That may well continue to be a challenging geopolitical problem but hardly inherently insurmountable. 

The bottom line is as I have repeatedly observed there is no major international entity - public or private - calling for the deployment of the safest and most effective portfolio of cooling interventions. Which is quite astonishing. 

I am highly confident that creating such an entity with an expansive budget, internationally renowned board and extremely well qualified staff could change the discourse on cooling in a remarkably short period of time. 

As obvious as it is - at least to me and I believe to you - that such an entity is an absolutely essential component of a strategy to gain acceptance for cooling deployment I have run into strong resistance in my attempts at giving the creation of such an entity a prominent place in the HP’s strategic plan. 

As long as those of us engaged on these and other lists choose not to work towards achieving the creation of such an entity or to propose an alternative strategy of equal potential effectiveness the impetus for cooling will likely be insufficient in the very short time left to make it happen. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 3, 2025, at 12:39 PM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:



Herb, the problem with that is that the Moonshot wasn't a wicked problem.  Climate change is.

You only have to scratch the surface to realise how dissimilar the two are.

Regards

Robert

---

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Sent: 03 February 2025 17:35
To: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>

Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

Hi Oswald,



Robert Tulip 🌷 

<image001.jpg>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/43619A82-B3FC-4826-B288-C6E686C37DEC%40gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

Great, can you please send links? There is nothing about in the US, nor did I find anything on the web.

 

Robert Tulip 🌷 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB49948EF93BA1C7E824E5411ADDF52%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CABgHNnTK33z1svmtbobUNo7LzckCgA%3DkKziJbwa8JXuy5mrRUw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/94e44ea8-1841-41d4-9011-0ba7003db4fb%40comcast.net.

[H simmens]

Hi Mike,

I am anything but an expert on international organizations or governance. I made the suggestion to create a high-level commission to attempt to get the ball rolling in coming up with some creative ways the world community can come together to advance the discussion on cooling and climate restoration. 

I came across a lengthy report written by the UN some years back listing quite a few examples of various commissions and how they worked and what they achieved. I haven’t read it but I welcome someone to take a look and let us know what it concludes. 

https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:2456/pdf928081110X.pdf

As far as the UN sustainable development commission it is my understanding that was disbanded over a decade ago. 

My own not particularly well informed view is that there is much too much polarization, division and rivalry amongst the nations of the world in general as well as with regard to cooling as we saw at the UNEA meeting last year in Nairobi to attempt to create some kind of entity that would require endorsement by diverse nations anytime soon. 

The idea of a commission – perhaps something like the Climate Overshoot Commission only much more strongly funded and aggressive - that can be established either privately or preferably by willing nations along with private interests - seems like a reasonable way forward. It is certainly not optimal which is why I appreciate your comments and look forward to hearing from others as well. 

Does anyone think other than perhaps Oswald that we should simply wait for the next IPCC set of reports near the end of the decade and hope for the best? 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 3, 2025, at 3:36 PM, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:



Hi Herb--I would sure like to learn about cases where a major international decision has come about in the way that you suggest--and even to learn about other cases where such decisions have come about at all.

It really strikes me that the UN structure is the only existing path to a decision to go forwards, and think that the UN Sustainable Development Commission (with UNEP, WMPO WHO, FAO, UNFCCC/IPCC, etc. cooperation) might be a vital forum that could make a recommendation to the UN Security Council and General Assembly. Having an organization such as you suggest might be a useful input to those efforts, or if it might be that a number of separate entities focused on each of the separate UN components might work better, so showing a broader base of organizations.

Best, Mike

Hi Oswald,



Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

Von: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>

Gesendet: Montag, 3. Februar 2025 18:10
An: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>

Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

Hi Oswald,

 

I agree with your observation that the coolness that the IPCC exhibits towards cooling is a fundamental roadblock and challenge. 

 

And since the IPCC decided not to devote any of its special reports to cooling or restoration the world has to wait until close to the end of the decade when AR seven comes out. 

 

But of course that timetable is totally inconsistent with the need for urgent action. 

 

Therefore I would suggest what is needed is a two track strategy: 

 

First to encourage and support the publication of as many peer reviewed papers as possible that treat cooling objectively. In the absence of a large body of favorable papers to cite the IPCC will once again pour cold water on cooling in the next round. 

 

Secondly and more urgently is helping to organize an international campaign to create a high level commission or body to comprehensively, objectively and equitably examine the evidence that ERA could be sufficient to preserve civilization as we know it and to recommend what would presumably be a triad based approach along with aggressive adaptation to minimize climate extremes, tipping point activation and civilizational and ecosystem collapse. 

 

I previously made this proposal and invoked the Brundtland Commission as one possible but certainly not the only model for such an effort. 

 

Does anyone have a better idea to establish the international legitimacy for DCC which is a prerequisite for any consequential deployment? 

 

Herb

 

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

 

On Feb 3, 2025, at 11:34 AM, 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Robert Tulip 🌷 

<image001.jpg>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/000401db7659%247b9c2840%2472d478c0%24%40hispeed.ch.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/43619A82-B3FC-4826-B288-C6E686C37DEC%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/AAB64495-EA27-4758-A608-D22F36EE64B0%40gmail.com.

[H simmens]

Let me second Alan‘s points. Regarding the insurance crisis and housing values in the US here’s a hard hitting article in today’s New York Times  

Let me also second Alan‘s comment that it is imperative that we find the resources to do the kind of market research and message development and testing that virtually every product and service on the planet goes through before and after it’s put on the market. 

I periodically make the same point on this list usually without any response whatsoever. 

Cooling is a brand new idea and there are very few precedents to guide us in developing and testing the kinds of language and messages that will resonate with various target audiences. 

We need to be quite humble in our advocacy of particular language and messages absent hard sophisticated data resulting from surveys, focus groups and message testing. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 3, 2025, at 5:39 PM, Alan Kerstein <alan.k...@gmail.com> wrote:



Tim,

I am totally a bush leaguer, but regarding “If it bleeds, it leads” I’ve been flogging the idea that the home insurance crisis, albeit a minor sideshow in the overall scheme of things, is the kind of in-your-face effect of climate change that might stir public sentiment more than the bigger but more distant effects. This ties into Robert C.’s pincer strategy in which public sentiment stiffens the spines of opinion leaders who pursue the top-down path.

I have also commented previously that we need to engage with public relations experts rather than operating ourselves at the bush league level.

Alan

On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:07 PM Tim Foresman <fore...@earthparty.org> wrote:

Dear  Robert, Mike, et al:

In UNEP, we published a series, Global Environmental Outlook, where I was responsible for GEO-3 (2002). I often remark to people that in GEO-3 there were two Ds and the rest were Fs. And the grades were going precipitously south in the following GEO series. 

Now, if we had trouble getting Ministers of the Environment and the world to pay attention to these issues, I ask "How are we supposed to cut through the weapons of mass distraction to get them to care about a bunch of ice chunks?"

If it bleeds, it leads (my mother was newspaper editor for 25 years) at the Key West Citizen. 

We collectively have to get much better at the game. And we are currently bush leaguers. 

If you bought Twitter, and you reached millions of people and you scared the bejesus out of them. Maybe. But the purchaser of Twitter doesn't appear to give an X about glaciers melting. After all, we can all start again on Mars. (Read Mary Roach, Packing for Mars)

Let's have some varsity thinking about this issue. Vint Cerf and others are wrestling with this issue from the PCI Community, (Public Centered Internet).

Perhaps...Mike or someone of stellar reputation could make a recommendation to this community. The PCI Community holds regular calls to share information and projects. To suggest a speaker or project for an upcoming call, please submit through this form: https://forms.gle/p1bCAzB3e7syf1vx8

You will certainly get my vote of confidence. A little cross breeding, perhaps to keep us breeding.

Peace, Tim

Dr. Tim Foresman

6219 Rockburn Hill Road

Elkridge, Maryland 21075

410-707-7352

www.earthparty.org

---

From: 'Michael MacCracken' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 11:13 AM
To: Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>

Cc: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

Dear Robert--Having talked to a prominent science reporter (employed by Science magazine) some years back, I'd suggest that the problem is that what is happening is not really news in their mind--it has already been reported. Basically, even the science reporters (or at least his) is that they are not responsible for educating the public by providing context for what is happening--they are responsible for reporting new findings and the Arctic melting is just not a new finding (or at least that is how the view expressed would apply to the news that you cite).

The effect of this viewpoint is that long-term, relatively slowly evolving problems will just not get the coverage that those thinking over the long-term (to them, perhaps a few years to a decade and more) think is essential in order to deal with the problem. So, just like the focus on investment seems to be mainly on the next quarter, the long term approach (which Warren Buffet has become wealthy on) is not going to be the focus of their attention. Trump and Musk are taking this to an extreme, not seeming to pay attention to focuses other than the next day's headlines.

So, no real need to get conspiratorial here--what else matters than living day to day?

Regards, Mike

On 2/3/25 9:20 AM, Robbie Tulip wrote:

Tom

The problem you describe, media ignoring Arctic melting, is one of mass psychological delusion. All matters global warming are now placed within a political framework that somehow allows climate change to be totally ignored. 

The triumph of Trump is understood as the defeat of woke. Climate change is categorised as just an ideological obsession associated with the promotion of diversity, inclusion and equity. Now that all things DEI can be ignored by decree, so too can the whole of science.

This dangerous fantasy of resolute ignorance is certainly a very short term moment in politics due to the Trump honeymoon. I remain of the view that an underlying rationality within Republican ranks can be reached by targeting the commercial interests of major conservative industries. But this needs to be handled with care.

Ignoring global warming is bad for business. Therefore a message will be constructed that says to key Trump acolytes, yes we are right to ignore carbon as a woke ideology, as Trump insists, but we can repackage climate change as bad weather, which Musk can manage with new sunlight reflection technologies. This is a tactical response to the disastrous mentality that allows winter Arctic melting to fail to make the news despite its portent of existential collapse.

Regards

Robert Tulip 🌷 

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 10:02 pm, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:

ON FEBRUARY 2, 2025, THE NORTH POLE IS MELTING

<image001[24].jpg>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/MN2PR12MB42556174F497B09FE3A1A865A5F52%40MN2PR12MB4255.namprd12.prod.outlook.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAH-gPYEJ1deS1LbHY82ThqwtO76SWkBnO-Nj4vesPN16jnGkVA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

This is about the recent paper saying the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, but does not seem to have any mention of the absolutely extraordinary warmth two days ago when the North Pole was melting and about 30C above average temperature for the coldest time of year. 

 

It’s like a tree falling in a forest that no one sees, and soon the whole forest will be gone…….

 

From: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 at 4:28 AM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, 'Michael MacCracken' <mmac...@comcast.net>, 'Robbie Tulip' <robbi...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'John Nissen' <johnnis...@gmail.com>, 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, 'Peter Wadhams' <peter....@gmail.com>, 'EcoRestoration Alliance' <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

Hi Tom,

 

I am afraid it’s all in German…

 

https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/klimawandel-wichtiger-lebensraum-fuer-eisbaeren-geht-zurueck-259139030196

Klimawandel: Arktis schmilzt blitzschnell – Was bedeutet das für Europa? - NAG

Klimawandel: So schnell schmilzt das Meereis der Arktis | NDR.de - Nachrichten - NDR Info

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

[H simmens]



Jim did not say a word about cooling in the webinar and at least one of his co-authors expressed her strong opposition to cooling. 

The good news is that Anton K the new ED was on the program but even he on behalf of Operaatio Arktus only expressed support for additional research essentially saying that the information should be available for the next generation to decide whether to deploy. 

I posted a question asking at what point would Jim support the actual deployment of cooling if it could be shown to be safe and effective. Unfortunately they only allowed time for I think three questions and they gave preference to journalists so my question was not asked. 

I was present at a previous presentation by Jim where in response to a question I posed replied that he was only supporting SRM research, which I found disappointing. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 4, 2025, at 10:19 AM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:



Hi Mike

Missed the Hansen webinar unfortunately but from a quick reading of his new paper, his closing remarks could not more powerfully endorse my closing remarks below.

The critical question is where are the forces that are going to provoke the necessary shift, and will they emerge soon enough and be powerful enough to overcome the current dominant forces seeking to conserve their power, wealth and status?

But he makes a good case for cooling - Hoorah!  It'll be interesting to see what impact that has.  Hopefully more than his historical efforts to promote fee and dividend.

Regards

Robert

---

From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: 04 February 2025 13:52
To: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Cc: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

Hi Mike

I've read your message several times, each with increasing incredulity!  I think I must be misreading it because you seem to be suggesting that merely by adding a few words to the UNFCCC Charter, all our past failures to implement the policies necessary to stabilise 'greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system' would somehow magically be resolved.  That can't really be what you mean, can it?

Where is there any credible evidence that utterances from the UN or its many agencies exhorting world leaders to act decisively and effectively in response to climate change has resulted in such action?  If only!

Moreover, if I've understood your first sentence correctly, I don't think there's any value in ranking climate change and the responses to it in terms of their respective degrees of complexity and wickedness.  The problem and the responses to it are all wrapped up together.  Without the problem, we wouldn't need the responses.  We have to treat them as a package and what makes them wicked is the virtual certainty that any combination of interventions significant enough to address global warming effectively is going to have side effects and some of these are going to be undesirable and some of those won't become evident until sometime in the future.  The interventions will (hopefully) reduce some climate threats but will also introduce others and this will mean that the climate change problem won't get solved, it'll just morph through a never-ending stream of adaptations.  

Humanity is on the threshold of taking long-term direct responsibility for the management of the global climate.  That is a BFD that I really don't think we've yet come to terms with.

Finally, your closing question is intriguing.  I'd love to hear a historian's considered view of how the world order has changed since 1992.  My gut feeling is that we'd be shocked by the extent to which the post-WWII ILO has disintegrated and the implications of this for a whole range of geopolitical issues, including climate change.  But I wouldn't recommend action merely based on what my guts are feeling 😄.

My advice to all those concerned about climate change is to stop relying solely on Enlightenment reductionist linear thinking.  Climate change is caused by too much human CO₂ emissions so the response must be to reduce the emissions.  Well, as we've seen, that doesn't work because if it did, we'd have done it by now.  It hasn't worked because reducing emissions at the necessary scale has implications across almost every aspect of modern life.  Climate change is a systems problem, and responses to it require appropriate systems interventions.  That expertise exists but it isn't called upon because the likely consequences would be a radical shift in the power, wealth and status of existing world elites.

In brief Mike, my reasoning is that climate change is more of power problem than a technical or climate science one.  That doesn't mean that the technology is not important, far from it.  But it does mean that the power of the technology to reduce the risks from climate change is hobbled by the dominant pressure to maintain the status quo for those with the political power to unleash that technological power.

The entity that Herb and I are proposing is all about loosening the ties that conserve that political power.

Regards

Robert

---

From: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>
Sent: 04 February 2025 00:43
To: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Cc: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

So Robert, my question is if human-induced climate change is more or less complex than applying intervention to deal with human-induced climate change that aims to offset further global warming? And, of course, I'd like to hear your reasoning. For climate change itself, the world came up with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. So here is the UNFCCC's objective:

ARTICLE 2
OBJECTIVE
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related
legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt
is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of
the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient
to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to
ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable
economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

So, what if there was an amendment of just a few words, replacing with "atmosphere" with "atmosphere and global average temperature", so adding just four words (or perhaps "atmosphere and global climatic conditions"). That is really all that has to be done and the rest follows. I've not read all the various treaty provisions and the agreements and interpretations provided by those that approved the convention, but if nations will approve the original objective, might approving this one be impossibly hard?

I'm raising this question because the problems facing climate intervention (asking to hold the climate roughly constant) would seem far less challenging that one would expect to be raised by allowing emissions to just keep going up. Has the world really changed so much since 1992 that nations could not be inspired to move forward?

Just wondering.

Best, Mike

On 2/3/25 4:27 PM, Robert Chris wrote:

Hi Herb

I disagree with almost everything you've said here but the bits I agree with are vital.  Let's start there.

I agree that creating the kind of entity you describe could change the discourse on cooling in a remarkably short period of time.  I think I might have got to that conclusion at about the same time as you, if not before.  No argument there!

I also agree that without it, the impetus for cooling will likely to be too little too late.  No argument there! 

I agree that cooling is less wicked than climate change.  But it's still pretty damned wicked.  The details you provide to support the case that it isn't very wicked largely misconstrue the nature of wickedness.  This is not the place to go into the detail of that.  I suggest you go back to the source, it's a great read.  Rittel and Webber were town planners, you should love it!

Rittel & Webber, 1973: Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning - UrbanPolicy.net HORST RITTEL & MEL WEBBER 1973, “DILEMMAS IN A GENERAL THEORY OF PLANNING” 156 the social services are beginning to acquire professional competencies. It might seem that our publics are being perverse, having condoned professionalism when it was urbanpolicy.net

The economic arguments are largely irrelevant.  No one is going to do SRM because it's cheaper than some alternative.

It's the problem that's wicked, not the proposed solution.  Climate change is a wicked problem and by definition that means that no solution is going to solve it, and that includes cooling.  We need to understand that we're not looking for solutions.  Climate change isn't a problem that's going to be solved, job done, let's move on to the next problem.  It's a situation that will have to be constantly managed.  Cooling has a vital role in that management but it isn't a solution to climate change.

The reason my hackles go up whenever anyone mentions the Moonshot as an example of what can be done with political will, is that however challenging it might have been as a project, ultimately it was just an engineering challenge.  It didn't present any social or political threats to US citizens or the those of other nations or to other nations' political circumstances other than perhaps to the prestige of the Russians.  If it had failed, it would just have been a big money pit.  Any significant intervention in the global climate is just so much more than that, that it doesn't bear comparison.  The problems with cooling are not the technological or even the financial ones you mention.  They don't make it wicked or tame.  The problems are geopolitical and, over time, climatic.  Whatever the scientists today say about SRM, deploying it at scale for a decade or more is going to throw up a stack of issues that they haven't even conceived yet.  That's part of what makes it wicked.  

Another is that there's no clear stopping point.  You don't stop SRM when the climate is 'fixed' because the climate will never be 'fixed'.  What does that even mean?  Once you start SRM at scale there's no escaping that humanity has taken direct responsibility for managing the global climate.  We don't have processes to manage or govern that and it's fanciful to imagine that those processes will just emerge from a bunch of people getting together and being rational and sensible.  They raise a whole stack of truly fundamental issues about our relationship with nature that have not been confronted in such a direct manner before.

This is not an argument for cooling not happening.  It's an argument for it being wicked and requiring the approaches appropriate to wicked problems.  If you treat it like a Moonshot, the great likelihood is that it'll blow up on the launch pad.

Regards

Robert

---

From: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Sent: 03 February 2025 18:19
To: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

Hi. Robert,

Climate change as a whole may be a wicked problem but deploying cooling on an urgent basis to minimize suffering death and collapse appears to be much more straightforward and much less wicked. 

There does not appear to be any insurmountable technological or economic barrier to deployment. The arguments and evidence in support of cooling versus ERA are overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of cooling. 

The cost benefit ratio is upwards of 1000 to one or more according to Robert Tulip and the Royal Society. Stephan Salter calculated that the annual debt service cost for a fleet of MCB vessels sufficient to cool the climate would be approximately what the security costs were for the Glasgow COP alone. David Keith has made similar calculations regarding the cost benefit ratio for SAI  

Therefore the challenge has been and remains finding effective ways to convey how dire our present condition is, how much worse it will get even with the most optimistic projections for emission reductions and how promising several cooling modalities singly or in combination may be for stabilizing and lowering temperature increases. 

That may well continue to be a challenging geopolitical problem but hardly inherently insurmountable. 

The bottom line is as I have repeatedly observed there is no major international entity - public or private - calling for the deployment of the safest and most effective portfolio of cooling interventions. Which is quite astonishing. 

I am highly confident that creating such an entity with an expansive budget, internationally renowned board and extremely well qualified staff could change the discourse on cooling in a remarkably short period of time. 

As obvious as it is - at least to me and I believe to you - that such an entity is an absolutely essential component of a strategy to gain acceptance for cooling deployment I have run into strong resistance in my attempts at giving the creation of such an entity a prominent place in the HP’s strategic plan. 

As long as those of us engaged on these and other lists choose not to work towards achieving the creation of such an entity or to propose an alternative strategy of equal potential effectiveness the impetus for cooling will likely be insufficient in the very short time left to make it happen. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 3, 2025, at 12:39 PM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:



Herb, the problem with that is that the Moonshot wasn't a wicked problem.  Climate change is.

You only have to scratch the surface to realise how dissimilar the two are.

Regards

Robert

---

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>

Sent: 03 February 2025 17:35
To: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>

Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

Hi Oswald,

I assume you meant to address your note to me and not Ron. 

There is nothing immutable about scientific timetables. My president established a mission to land on the moon by the end of the decade and the necessary science and technology resources were then mobilized to make it happen. Had that goal not been established it might’ve taken another decade or two to do the science and technology necessary. 

A commission or farsighted world leader or two could announce after intensive review of the existing evidence that it is necessary - invoking the precautionary principle - to deploy safe and effective cooling by the end of the decade in order to minimize further suffering, death and collapse. 

And X million dollars will be made available to the scientific and technology community to propose and field test the safest and most effective portfolio of cooling techniques by say 2028 with deployment beginning by 2030 or 2032. 

Are you saying that we can’t or shouldn’t adopt a top down mission driven approach as I describe above to avoiding existential collapse of civilization and the natural world as we know it? 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Feb 3, 2025, at 12:22 PM, Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch> wrote:



Hi Ron,

 

yes and no.

 

Yes to many (peer reviewed) papers which describe a consistent strategy out of the mess we are in. You will do your SAI, we are working on the EAMO…

 

No to a timetable which is dictated by urgency. Science is a very slow and thorough process. It just does not happen fast, no matter what urgency. Science will eventually embrace the right strategy. It will probably take another 10 years. In the sense of GW that’s way too slow. Right. But hectical jumping around does not help, it will not make it faster. Do the hard work. Very detailed, very long, very slow.  

 

No to trying to invoke a grand commission. It won’t happen. Let’s concentrate on things which are possible. This one is not. Not yet.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

Von: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Februar 2025 18:10
An: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>

Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

Hi Oswald,

 

I agree with your observation that the coolness that the IPCC exhibits towards cooling is a fundamental roadblock and challenge. 

 

And since the IPCC decided not to devote any of its special reports to cooling or restoration the world has to wait until close to the end of the decade when AR seven comes out. 

 

But of course that timetable is totally inconsistent with the need for urgent action. 

 

Therefore I would suggest what is needed is a two track strategy: 

 

First to encourage and support the publication of as many peer reviewed papers as possible that treat cooling objectively. In the absence of a large body of favorable papers to cite the IPCC will once again pour cold water on cooling in the next round. 

 

Secondly and more urgently is helping to organize an international campaign to create a high level commission or body to comprehensively, objectively and equitably examine the evidence that ERA could be sufficient to preserve civilization as we know it and to recommend what would presumably be a triad based approach along with aggressive adaptation to minimize climate extremes, tipping point activation and civilizational and ecosystem collapse. 

 

I previously made this proposal and invoked the Brundtland Commission as one possible but certainly not the only model for such an effort. 

 

Does anyone have a better idea to establish the international legitimacy for DCC which is a prerequisite for any consequential deployment? 

 

Herb

 

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

 

On Feb 3, 2025, at 11:34 AM, 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



<image001.jpg>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/000401db7659%247b9c2840%2472d478c0%24%40hispeed.ch.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/43619A82-B3FC-4826-B288-C6E686C37DEC%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/VI1P194MB0398867244807233E433282DFCF52%40VI1P194MB0398.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Owen Allen]

The most powerful impact on the future is for a government (any level) to pass a policy that requires R&D that hasn't been done e.g the moon landing. The policy of course requires a funding stream and it is powerful because it usually comes with a funding stream or a financial tax reward to private investors.

cheers

Owen Allen

Chair

Umoja Community Foundation

Nakivale, Uganda

Atherton
Qld 4883
Australia
+61 0423430941
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/owen59/

You ARE the Betterment of the World

On 04/02/2025 04:35, H simmens wrote:

Hi Oswald,

 

I assume you meant to address your note to me and not Ron. 

 

There is nothing immutable about scientific timetables. My president established a mission to land on the moon by the end of the decade and the necessary science and technology resources were then mobilized to make it happen. Had that goal not been established it might've taken another decade or two to do the science and technology necessary. 

 

A commission or farsighted world leader or two could announce after intensive review of the existing evidence that it is necessary - invoking the precautionary principle - to deploy safe and effective cooling by the end of the decade in order to minimize further suffering, death and collapse. 

 

And X million dollars will be made available to the scientific and technology community to propose and field test the safest and most effective portfolio of cooling techniques by say 2028 with deployment beginning by 2030 or 2032. 

 

Are you saying that we can't or shouldn't adopt a top down mission driven approach as I describe above to avoiding existential collapse of civilization and the natural world as we know it? 

 

Herb

 

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

"A SciencePoem and an Inspiration." Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

 

On Feb 3, 2025, at 12:22 PM, Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch> wrote:

Hi Ron,

 

yes and no.

 

Yes to many (peer reviewed) papers which describe a consistent strategy out of the mess we are in. You will do your SAI, we are working on the EAMO...

 

Hi Mike,

 

our Swiss newspapers are actually full of the Arctic story today. So, no, it is not true that media are not paying attention to this, at least not here. The problem is in fact, that nobody believes the story of possible cooling. And that is in fact not a media problem. Media report what established science tells them, and established science tells the eternal tale of ERA. And that story is, well, reported multiple times and ... boring.

 

We have to concentrate on IPCC. Without them changing the ERA story, it won't happen, neither SAI, nor EAMO, nor OIF nor anything...

--
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
 
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
 
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/43619A82-B3FC-4826-B288-C6E686C37DEC%40gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

NOAA Weather data may disappear soon (BBC News):

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2q1g3evzqo

 

“There are also reports that the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) is targeting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

 

The US government agency is tasked with weather forecasting, monitoring conditions in the ocean and atmosphere and managing fishing and protections for endangered marine life. It runs the National Weather Center - which has forecasting offices in cities and states across the US and helps forecast everything from tornadoes to hurricanes.

 

Those who work for Doge, which is led by billionaire Elon Musk, have been inside the NOAA offices and employees have been told to expect budget and staffing reductions, sources told CBS.”

 

This would eliminate crucial databases on climate change and extreme weather events, for example:

 

T. J. F. Goreau & R. L. Hayes, 2024, 2023 record marine heat waves: Coral Bleaching HotSpot maps reveal global sea surface temperature extremes, coral mortality, and ocean circulation change, Oxford Open Climate Change, https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/4/1/kgae005/7666987

 

T. J. F. Goreau, R. L. Hayes, & T. P. Sarkisian, 2024 Record High 2024 Sea Surface Temperatures: Impacts on coral reefs and ocean circulation, submitted

 

 

[H simmens]

I live down the street from NOAA headquarters and will see what I can find out….

Herb

On Feb 6, 2025, at 7:22 PM, Dana Woods <danaj...@gmail.com> wrote:

SOMEONE TAKE HIM OUT

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994AE8FB976FA848518F834DDF62%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAKum48uiRNEqfpaXJKixJACu%2B1uKZZjjrdfsyN_ZQihhhNRizA%40mail.gmail.com.