How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system

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

image001.jpg

Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 11:56:25 AM2/3/25

to Robbie Tulip, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Ha! This is great. I have been avoiding that movie like a bad cliche so the really important question I have is, "how many rotten tomatoes?" It sounds like the global warming psychology might make it viewable ~ ~ ~

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

On 2/3/2025 9:35 AM, Robbie Tulip wrote:

Yesterday I watched the 2024 Spielberg movie Twisters while flying over the pole from Helsinki to Tokyo. It offers some helpful messaging for confronting Arctic melting and other climate catastrophes such as worsening tornadoes. Spoiler alert as this review reveals the plot, which faithfully follows the best by test Spielberg formula.

The movie is set in Tornado Alley in Oklahoma, with a totally red state cast and plot except for the twister that the beautiful local girl cloud physics PhD goes to New York for a while after killing several friends in a tornado geoengineering experiment gone wrong. After her ex-lover and co-experimenter joins the military and entices her back to the real world out of woke city, the tornado wranglers dismiss her as the New York girl, as she conceals her Okie roots.

She then teams up with the chief wrangler, brilliantly cast with Glen Powell the chief baddie from Top Gun, now walking with horse rider stereotype bow legs. He has won his spurs in the rodeo wrangling bulls, and together they work out the geoengineering chemistry based on her high school physics project.

At the climax (spoiler) she drives into the teeth of the storm, releasing chemicals to dissolve a monster twister the moment before it destroys a full movie theatre. This is fully expected Spielberg fantasy high drama pop culture at its best.

The buttons this movie is pressing include first that science wonks are dangerous until they team up with red bloods. But then if they listen to rural intuition they can get things right. New York meets Little Rock, but as wholesome farm girl. There is no trace of hating on the deplorables, except for the weird Hollywood idea that locals are too stupid to know what to do when a tornado is bearing down.

This movie usefully touches a bunch of cultural tropes raised by geoengineering. From killing her friends by releasing experimental chemicals, science is redeemed by connection to grass roots rural realism. Also, bad weather is steadily getting more regular and more extreme and destructive. The parable is that effective climate technology can only emerge when partisan social divisions are overcome.

Regards

Robert Tulip

🌷

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 11:20 pm, Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com> 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:

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/CABgHNnRRhd9W5oWEO_z2uGJWoxKbgjRGMb_MYoLkaP2zhC%3D8PA%40mail.gmail.com.

H simmens

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 12:10:41 PM2/3/25

to Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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.

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 12:23:02 PM2/3/25

to H simmens, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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

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

Robert Tulip 🌷

image001.jpg

H simmens

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 12:35:35 PM2/3/25

to Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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:

Robert Tulip 🌷

Robert Chris

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 12:39:53 PM2/3/25

to H simmens, Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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

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

H simmens

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 1:19:49 PM2/3/25

to Chris Robert, Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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:

Hi Oswald,

Robert Tulip 🌷

<image001.jpg>

Tom Goreau

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 1:29:56 PM2/3/25

to Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, EcoRestoration Alliance

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

Michael MacCracken

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 3:36:23 PM2/3/25

to H simmens, Chris Robert, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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

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

Alan Kerstein

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 4:10:49 PM2/3/25

to Michael MacCracken, H simmens, Chris Robert, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

Hi Mike,

The approach that you suggest will be an important step in the process, but it will not be viable until climate cooling is at least marginally within the Overton window. To put it plainly, advocates of climate cooling are presently subject to public perceptions that they are cranks and crackpots and/or they have dastardly ulterior motives. Herb is addressing the necessary steps to overcome this so that institutions such as those you mention will be amenable to engaging with the issue. I’ve expressed some ideas about how to pursue these preliminary steps, so to avoid repeating myself I won’t say more.

I think this will be more like a special forces operation than a broad-based mission, so maybe a coalition of the willing would be more effective than enshrining it in the HPAC strategic plan.

I’ll just repeat one thing that I posted recently. It’s a quotation from Margaret Mead:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has."

Alan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/9150d53c-b64f-4211-a29a-90824ef4b073%40comcast.net.

H simmens

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 4:15:12 PM2/3/25

to Michael MacCracken, Chris Robert, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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.

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:

Robert Chris

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 4:27:44 PM2/3/25

to H simmens, Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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>

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 4:34:52 PM2/3/25

to H simmens, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

Dear Herb,

I am just stating the obvious. Politics follow science. Science, in the case of the climate crisis, is dominated by IPCC, and the essential message they publish is called AR1-6. They are the leaders.

IPCC says that GW can and should be stopped by emission reductions. In AR6 they have added some CO2 removal, to compensate for the gap between the goal of 1.5 °C and the real temperature development. Now, that this gap widens, they will have to reconsider their options. And they will. It is a slow, cumbersome procedure. It happens in slow motion, because not only scientists but also governments have a say. Right now - there is even a backlash, politics are turning backwards, against emission reductions. But “fortunately” GW is moving ahead fast and thick, which means that the backlash will be finished quite soon. It is a sarcastic thing to say, but look, even LA burning down does not really change US politics right now.

In comparison to politics IPCC is way ahead. They know, that GW is extremely dangerous. But they are placed between a rock and a hard place. They have to do a balancing act between science and governments who do not want to hear the message. So, we should not bash IPCC. We should always support science - it is our only hope.

According to IPCC GW is caused by GHG. Albedo changes are also caused by GHG, they are a secondary phenomenon which adds to GW. But the solution is to remove the GHG from the atmosphere. The solution is, to remove the cause, not some symptom. This is what established science says, and it is not what HPAC says. As long as HPAC advocates SAI, it will fail.

I agree with IPCC on this. Remove GHG! But forget the DAC engineering toys, they are way too small. Man cannot do this on his own. Use the only force that can do this. It has a name, it is called “Nature”. Nature causes GW, triggered by anthropogenic GHG. To reverse it, do the same, but use triggers which make Nature cool the climate. We have already done it, inadvertently, with SO2 and NOx, and we can do it, advertently, with ferric chloride or some other catalyst. Right now we are actually removing the cooling gases, and “it works”, it is getting hotter. Now we have to learn the lesson and do the opposite. We are already geoengineering the climate. We just have to realize this fact and then apply all our knowledge to go backwards, to the benevolent climate we used to have.

It is, in fact, not that difficult. And it will happen.

Regards

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Opinion | The New Evidence Climate Change Will Upend American Homeownership

Robert Tulip 🌷

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

image001.jpg

Robert Chris

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 4:53:57 PM2/3/25

to H simmens, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

Hi Mike and others

I think there's a misunderstanding here about the purpose behind this entity that Herb referred to. In my original conception of it, it wasn't intended as a governance or decision-making entity, and even less as a policymaking entity. It's an advocacy entity. Its sole purpose is to get cooling front and centre in the Overton window and do so in such a way that it has sufficient steam behind it to carry it through established decision-making and governance organisations.

This entity needs to have global presence, or at least broad international presence, it needs to have a unified message that is tailored for the specifics of each regional and nation, it needs to be able to reach across the socio-political spectrum in each jurisdiction.

The idea is to create a pincer movement so that the pressure it places on policymakers to make policy, is supported by pressure from the public, corporate and civil society sectors in each polity, so that the policymakers feel that they can make the necessary policy without alienating their electorates and others on whom their continued hold on power rests.

The problem it's intended to address is that policymakers aren't going to adopt policies that they fear are going to lose them support from those on whom their continued hold on power depends. Right now, cooling is such a policy.

As far as I know, there is no organisation that currently does this. The UN should be, but sadly, it's become a busted flush. Something new, with new energy is needed to take the world by storm. Alan's quote from Margaret Mead is most apt. But how do we identify those few people and get them engaged and funded? Crack that, and we might have a chance of getting cooling to work its magic.

I had originally got a lot of support for this idea from Dave King but I must have blown it in some way because he suddenly dropped it without explanation. But it needs a couple of people of his stature and global presence to pick it up and nurture it through its gestation to a point where it has sufficient momentum of its own to roll down the hill gathering ever greater mass as it does so.

I am quite convinced that one-legged appeals to policymakers will be to little avail.

Regards

Robert

From: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Sent: 03 February 2025 21:14
To: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>
Cc: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>; 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>

Robert Chris

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 5:06:27 PM2/3/25

to H simmens, Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

Hi Oswald

I'm afraid I find your uber-rational approach to all this utterly naive. It runs totally counter to my understanding of how complex adaptive systems evolve. Reason is a factor but by no means a determining one. Any approach to all this that doesn't account for the power, influence, status and wealth of the ruling elites, is half-baked.

I suspect the gulf between us is too great to bridge with a few messages.

I also suspect that we'll both be long dead before the evidence is available to prove which of us is closer to the truth. Well, hopefully I will have been thoroughly recycled by then.

Regards

Robert

From: 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 03 February 2025 21:34
To: 'H simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/006701db7683%24735dc4c0%245a194e40%24%40hispeed.ch.

Tim Foresman

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 5:07:00 PM2/3/25

to Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, Michael MacCracken, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, EcoRestoration Alliance

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

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

Alan Kerstein

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 5:39:07 PM2/3/25

to Tim Foresman, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, Michael MacCracken, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, EcoRestoration Alliance

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

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

H simmens

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 6:04:08 PM2/3/25

to Alan Kerstein, Tim Foresman, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, Michael MacCracken, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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

2025-01-24-homeowners-insurance-projections-index-videoSixteenByNine3000-v4.png

nytimes.com

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:

Robert Tulip 🌷

<image001[24].jpg>

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

Michael MacCracken

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 7:43:20 PM2/3/25

to Robert Chris, H simmens, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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

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

Aria Mckenna

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 7:54:54 PM2/3/25

to Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas, Robbie Tulip, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Warmest Thanks For Everything You Do,
Aria McKenna
Brand: "Saving Planet Us"
🙏🥰🩵🌏💦🐋🫒🦋🙌

Writer, Producer, Climate Communicator
Global Cooling Productions
www.GlobalCoolingProductions.com

Creator
Revolution Earth
(Romantic Cli-fi Thriller - w/ a touch of Action/Adventure/Futuristic Fantasy for TV in Development)

Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aria-mckenna

IMDB:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3994260/?ref_=ext_shr

Watch My 'BECOMING THE CHANGE' Roundtable at:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=C472MxNDzZM&si=pPYMnQW0YxCPaTUH

Learn more about the 'Climate Triad', a holistic approach to Climate Restoration at Healthy Planet Action Coalition:
www.HealthyPlanetAction.org

https://www.greentv.com/aboutus

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/f006fe98-5330-46b1-bb52-6305db80ce47%40earthlink.net.

image001[24].jpg

Aria Mckenna

unread,

Feb 3, 2025, 8:04:44 PM2/3/25

to Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas, Robbie Tulip, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition

Sounds like you're touching on a bunch of themes and strategies inherent in my own project. My central character is conservative and comes from a culture of climate denial. Hoping a culture of climate fiction can

shine a game changing light on our climate realities.

🙏🌏🙌

Warmest Thanks For Everything You Do,
Aria McKenna
Brand: "Saving Planet Us"
🙏🥰🩵🌏💦🐋🫒🦋🙌

Writer, Producer, Climate Communicator
Global Cooling Productions
www.GlobalCoolingProductions.com

Creator
Revolution Earth
(Romantic Cli-fi Thriller - w/ a touch of Action/Adventure/Futuristic Fantasy for TV in Development)

Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aria-mckenna

IMDB:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3994260/?ref_=ext_shr

Watch My 'BECOMING THE CHANGE' Roundtable at:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=C472MxNDzZM&si=pPYMnQW0YxCPaTUH

Learn more about the 'Climate Triad', a holistic approach to Climate Restoration at Healthy Planet Action Coalition:
www.HealthyPlanetAction.org

https://www.greentv.com/aboutus

On Mon, Feb 3, 2025, 11:56 AM Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <bme...@earthlink.net> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/f006fe98-5330-46b1-bb52-6305db80ce47%40earthlink.net.

image001[24].jpg

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 3:11:37 AM2/4/25

to Robert Chris, H simmens, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

Hi Robert,

we do not have to agree on anything in this group. The rules here allow us to utter opinions and thoughts without being accountable. That’s great!

I hope you won’t be recycled too soon!

Have a great day

Oswald

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

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

image001.jpg

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 4:28:28 AM2/4/25

to Tom Goreau, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, EcoRestoration Alliance

Hi Tom,

I am afraid it’s all in German…

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

Healthy Planet Action Coalition

image001.jpg

Tom Goreau

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 5:20:47 AM2/4/25

to Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, EcoRestoration Alliance

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…….

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 7:20:13 AM2/4/25

to Tom Goreau, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, EcoRestoration Alliance

Dear Tom,

you are right it is not.

The “news” you describe were in fact no news. Not anywhere. It is just your personal observation, but it did not make it in the news. Media react to press releases and/or other media, but this was in no media at all. We had many articles in the past which did describe similar temperature anomalies. This is just one more.

Media coverage is (normally) a result of some press release somewhere, which does or does not make it into the media. Media decide what is interesting and what is not. But in this case - there wasn’t even a press release…

image001.jpg

John Nissen

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 7:20:34 AM2/4/25

to Tom Goreau, Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Ron Baiman

Hi Tom,

Atlantic water is forcing its way ever further into the Arctic, adding to the vicious cycle of albedo positive feedback and making it ever more difficult to break the cycle.

There should be no doubt that the Arctic needs to be refrozen. The chance of success, even with SAI, is dwindling. Trump must be persuaded. He is our best hope. He could treat it like a moon shot or a Manhattan project and get SAI well underway during his term in office.

I can hardly imagine any other scenario which would not commit future generations to catastrophic sea level rise and probably catastrophic climate change for many parts of the world, including parts of the USA. But perhaps China and India might also have the umph to do the deed, if they recognised the urgency and implications of failure for their own citizens.

We can start by refuting the article in the Economist which suggested that an unfrozen Arctic would be a good thing economically. I have asked Ron whether he would help me write a repost.

Cheers John

image001.jpg

Tom Goreau

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 7:57:11 AM2/4/25

to John Nissen, Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Ron Baiman

It is STILL warming up in the northern waters next to the shrinking floating ice cap in February, and there are ocean areas north of Spitsbergen that are currently Extreme temperature HotSpots, several degrees above the maximum temperature in the WARMEST month, during the COLDEST month!

There are SO MANY people being paid to monitor global weather, something so extraordinary should not have escaped their attention!

Incredibly, it has! I’m just a Jamaican coral guy, nobody listens to ignorant natives who work without money and don’t do social media PR. Not that the naked emperors would listen to the facts from the World Meteorological Organization anyway.

There are incredible piles of money to be made melting that stupid ice out of the way of the drills and explosives, and the sooner they can spend that money on nuclear weapons to protect their loot from those who don’t have any, the happier (and hotter) they will be. They can afford air conditioning, tough shit for climate refugees who can’t, like the Bikini people. They’ll tell them “wear a bikini hahahaha, and buy innertubes”.

Later they will chill out instantly with a Nuclear Winter whenever an insane megalomaniac gets his finger on the button.

An El Niño is starting, could this year could become the first Arctic Ice free summer?

Or will nuclear winter prevent it?

Robert Chris

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 8:52:34 AM2/4/25

to Michael MacCracken, H simmens, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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>

Robert Chris

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 10:19:54 AM2/4/25

to Michael MacCracken, H simmens, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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>

H simmens

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 12:29:56 PM2/4/25

to Chris Robert, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

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:

Ron Baiman

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 12:52:28 PM2/4/25

to H simmens, Chris Robert, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

Dear Colleagues,

I haven't been able to follow this thread (as moving truck is coming tomorrow!) but I note that the article that John posted is about the same paper that the interview with Rahmsdorf was about that Mike (and Renaud) posted some time ago (see those threads). Though media is of course having a field day with this "controversy" , my own feeling is that numerous other indications (4 fold increase in sea surface temp, Jan 2025 the hottest month after El Nino transition, and 2023 and 2024 the hottest years, strong suggest (to my non- expert understanding) that Hansen et al 2023, Sabine, and Rahmsdorf in his critique of this paper are more correct in that the new CMIP6 has been constructed (see Rahmsdorf interview) by giving the "hot models" (those with higher climate sensitivity) less weight will prove to be a mistake - as it appears the "hot models" (as Hansen et al. 2023, and Sabine) opine are proving to be more accurate - which (in my understanding of a major point of Rahmsdorf's critique of this paper that relies on the new CMIP6) suggests the AMOC is in greater danger of beginning to collapse earlier rather than the old view that this is not a risk for this century.

Also (though I haven't been able to read the posts in detail) I did skim a bit of the sparring over strategy. I'm fully supportive of any and all outreach to global powers, the public, etc., but (though I really, really, hate to say this!!!) I go back to our original plan as perhaps the most likely to yield near term practical effect (if we can pull it off which is highly unlikely!) of trying to get to Musk 😡. And for those of us based in the EU and Aus (and for Ye who has Chinese connections, and Dennis with Brazilian connections) I suggest working in these countries as I think a "coalition of the willing" with (right now very unfortunately!) US techno is our best near term shot. Again, my two cents for what it's worth!

Best,

Ron

My two cents as a "lay" observer!

Best,

Ron

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/E047C626-9764-424C-BF87-7CBA1D906415%40gmail.com.

--

@HPACoalition (Bluesky and Twitter/X)

Addressing the Urgent Need for Direct Climate Cooling: Rationale and Options

Baiman et al. 2024. Oxford Open Climate Change

An Open Letter to the IMO Supporting Maritime Transport that Cools the Atmosphere While Preserving Air Quality Benefits. Baiman et al. 2024. Oxford Open Climate Change

Mike Williamson

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 12:56:34 PM2/4/25

to H simmens, Chris Robert, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

Herb,

SRM would seem to imply cooling and the critical collapse of the AMOC in the near term also implies that we have run out of time for longer-term solutions. Unfortunately, we have been trained to avoid the definitive statements that will cause rejection in peer-review.

We must get the word out to the press in a format understandable by the general population.

Mike Williamson

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

Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 9:29 AM
To: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; 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>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/E047C626-9764-424C-BF87-7CBA1D906415%40gmail.com.

John Nissen

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 4:48:32 PM2/4/25

to Ron Baiman, H simmens, Chris Robert, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Anton Keskinen

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your email on this thread. The HPAC approach lacks focus in my view. We need to focus on cooling, and specifically cooling the Arctic where tipping processes are already in full swing.

I did watch the panel discussion with Hansen today; and while the tipping point issue was raised, there was no sense of urgency for preventing a point of no return, which would require SAI in practice, because of its availability, its safety (though still disputed, alas), its effectiveness and its scalability.

The report of a Swiss-US study which started this thread has been reinforced by news of the 20-30C heating anomaly at the North Pole, reported in the Guardian today [1]. I have great respect for Dirk Notz and his comments as quoted. SAI (with potential support from other cooling techniques) has a reasonable chance to overcome the vicious cycle of warming and melting in the Arctic and thereby start bringing the Arctic temperature down.

The Economist article talks about the economic benefits of a low ice Arctic. We must point out the deadly dangers, which would lead to economic woes everywhere and the collapse of some economies. Economists have been discounting the future and failing the young people of today.

Cheers, John

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/04/temperatures-at-north-pole-20c-above-average-and-beyond-ice-melting-point

Quote:

The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the global average since 1979, and extreme heat has become hotter and more common.

Temperatures rising above freezing are of particular concern because they melt ice, said Dirk Notz, a climate scientist at the University of Hamburg. “There is no negotiating with this fact, and no negotiating with the fact that the ice will disappear more and more as long as temperatures keep rising.”

A study Notz coauthored in 2023 found Arctic summer sea ice would be lost even with drastic cuts to planet-heating pollution.

“We expect the Arctic Ocean to lose its sea-ice cover in summer for the first time over the next two decades,” said Notz. “This will probably be the first landscape that disappears because of human activities, indicating yet again how powerful we humans have become in shaping the face of our planet.”

Tom Goreau

unread,

Feb 4, 2025, 6:01:26 PM2/4/25

to John Nissen, Ron Baiman, H simmens, Chris Robert, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Anton Keskinen

Thanks for this confirmation by the Guardian and Copernicus of my posting two days earlier.

I’ve updated the posting accordingly:

https://www.globalcoral.org/north-pole-melting-on-february-2/

Remember, you heard it here first!

Robert Chris

unread,

Feb 5, 2025, 6:29:11 AM2/5/25

to H simmens, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

Note that i have changed the Subject of this thread.

There's a lot to digest in this new report but much has been presaged in Hansen's other utterances. Here I want to pick up on Zeke Hausfather's comment reported in The Guardian article on the report. It says:

Climate scientist Dr Zeke Hausfather, who was not part of the study, said it was a useful contribution. “It’s important to emphasise that both of these issues – [pollution cuts] and climate sensitivity – are areas of deep scientific uncertainty,” he said.

“While Hansen et al are on the high end of available estimates, we cannot say with any confidence that they are wrong, rather that they just represent something closer to a worst-case outcome.”

We need to ask what the point is of this comment. He's accepting that Hansen's assessment can't be dismissed as wrong but effectively marginalises it by declaring it to be 'closer to a worst-case outcome' without specifying whether it's closer on the positive or negative side of such an outcome, or whether its sufficiently likely that we need to worry about it.

This is Hausfather being a clever scientist and demonstrating his grasp of the scientific uncertainties that bedevil the entire climate change discourse. It is also Hausfather demonstrating that he has no grasp of the policy implications of the science.

It is easy for the uninitiated to read his comment and assume that Hansen's assessment is so far out in the distant thin tail of probability, that it isn't something we really need worry about. What Hausfather doesn't make clear is that the probability distribution has horrendously fat tails and any worst-case outcome could easily be replaced by an even worse worst-case outcome as some of the uncertainties are resolved. This is precisely what has happened time and again during the last several decades of climate science. Moreover, he makes no comment about what would be an 'acceptable' likelihood of this worst-case outcome given the scale of harm that would ensue were it to be realised.

From a policy perspective it is precisely because these worst-case outcomes are plausible, even if some may consider them to be less likely than some less worse outcomes, and the harms they entail are so enormous, that they should be the focus of policymaking.

Scientists have got to stop confusing the intellectual demand to not overclaim their truths because they are always subject to some degree of uncertainty, with the need that policymakers have to protect the public in the face of that uncertainty, recognising that the public want to be protected from any plausible worst-case outcome. The whole point about it being plausible is that it wouldn't be a great surprise if it happened. That's what plausible means.

Hausfather should be saying that Hansen has identified a plausible future, and given the potential harm it might entail, policymakers need urgently to step up and have policies that have a very very very high likelihood of preventing it from coming to pass.

The current jargon for these events is HILL - High Impact Low Likelihood.

Regards

Robert

From: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Sent: 04 February 2025 17:29
To: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; 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>

daleanne bourjaily

unread,

Feb 5, 2025, 9:17:10 AM2/5/25

to Tim Foresman, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, Michael MacCracken, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, EcoRestoration Alliance

Dear Tim,

The angle we gave found is the cost of defense when the Arctic opens up for shipping, mining and empire building. A Finnish general predicts the first Arctic war in three years' time. Now that is a "bleed".

A general in the Strategic Command in the US has asked us for a business case - the present cost of defending frozen Arctic versus future costs when the Northwest Passage opens. We have the US present costs and are working on NATO -wide costs.

Refreezing with MCB could be cheaper than defense. Navies of Chile, Angola, Peru, Canada and the US are in the right zones to spray.

Furthermore we are seeking funding for research on misting with a plasma arc installation that could be mounted on vessels.

The African meteos led by GMet in Ghana are organising events on MCB/natural SRM to take the public outreach agenda forward.

We are happy to talk about this in your community if so desired.

By the way I remember the Key West paper from the '60's. Quality can be found in unexpected places.

Best,

Dale Anne bluecooling.org

Op ma 3 feb 2025 23:07 schreef Tim Foresman <fore...@earthparty.org>:

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

Anton Alferness

unread,

Feb 5, 2025, 12:59:15 PM2/5/25

to Robert Chris, H simmens, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

What continues to agitate me with the greater scientific community is the over-reliance on faulty models. And Zeke is deep into "the models are super close to being realistic and therefore reliable" - and of course he is wrong. If he wasn't, we wouldn't be facing 1.5C warming today, rather it would still be 20 years off.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/VI1P194MB03986EBF5B307F5D7317E215FCF72%40VI1P194MB0398.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

H simmens

unread,

Feb 5, 2025, 6:30:12 PM2/5/25

to Chris Robert, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

Hi Robert,

Here is Laurie Laybourn’s response to the Hansen paper.

I like his concept of ‘ unrevealed risk’ that he asserts is now much greater if the paper is correct.

Laurie was the featured speaker along with Robert at an important HP meeting focused on tipping points held several months ago.

Laurie Laybourn on LinkedIn: Climate change target of 2C is ‘dead’, says renowned climate scientist | 14 comments

linkedin.com

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

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

On Feb 5, 2025, at 6:29 AM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

Alan Kerstein

unread,

Feb 6, 2025, 3:28:51 AM2/6/25

to H simmens, Chris Robert, Michael MacCracken, Oswald Petersen, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Alliance EcoRestoration

Herb, Robert,

In addition to being hard to quantify, the likelihood of a HILL event is not a useful climate-risk metric and it doesn’t fully capture the case for cooling. The events constitute a rate process, quantified as a likelihood per year that changes from year to year. The rate depends on human actions and their time-lagged effects on the environment. People who downplay the need for cooling hang their hats on fantastical things like DAC, which will be, in effect, geoengineering if done at the needed scale. Risks of alternatives to cooling not being deployed in time to forestall harms greater than any notional harm caused by cooling must be weighed against that notional harm. People draw napkin diagrams predicting temperature vs. time under various scenarios. This is fine, but a balanced risk assessment must distinguish the realistic scenarios from the fantasies.

The time element is central to the position that cooling is something for future generations to decide. I think there’s a case to be made, first that cooling is likely to be inevitable, and second that sooner is better than later so that it can be ramped up slowly enough to provide confidence that any risks are manageable, meanwhile reducing climate harms at least marginally while delaying more severe harms. This is the answer to those wanting to pass the buck to future generations.

This is a complicated case to make, but it is the right case to make to scientists because they can comprehend it and it is the correct way to frame it. Bringing scientists on board is needed to gain support from trusted messengers who will then have the daunting task of convincing the wider public, necessarily using more simplistic explanations.

Alan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/5771F23D-CFEC-4845-B8F7-A3FD33DB9683%40gmail.com.

Veli Albert Kallio

unread,

Feb 6, 2025, 2:53:01 PM2/6/25

to Tom Goreau, John Nissen, Oswald Petersen, Michael MacCracken, Robbie Tulip, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Ron Baiman

Unfortunately, there are many other extraordinaries of same magnitude. Its which one you choose!

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Sent: 04 February 2025 12:57
To: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>
Subject: [HPAC] HOT times ahead!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/BY3PR13MB4994297E3E666B7881ADF819DDF42%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

John Nissen

unread,

Feb 6, 2025, 5:23:08 PM2/6/25

to Tom Goreau, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration

Hi Tom,

Going back to the LinkedIn posting by Laurie Laybourn [1], he said:

Thirdly, regardless of whether Hansen is correct, there is a vast and growing gap between the generally understood level of climate risk and the actual level. Markets, govts, public debate etc are hiding a *lot* of unreleased risk. When that is revealed and becomes widely understood - likely through events and not more studies - then its effects could be destabilising.

What does he mean by destabilising? Isn't he covering up the obvious need for direct climate cooling? Nothing else is working, and the situation is far worse than generally acknowledged.

Cheers, John

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/laurie-laybourn-21592145_climate-change-target-of-2c-is-dead-says-activity-7292857016971067392-i8ng

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 5:05 PM Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:

Are the 2024 anomalies yet out? The Amazon and Congo Basin droughts continued.

I fully agree with your analysis, but want to add that Tseloudis, Hansen, et al were clear that they were looking at changes over the ocean. I will soon post a preprint of the 2024 record sea surface temperature change patterns (sorry Anya, no land data!).

Tseloudis convincingly showed that the cloud free band is widening and the cloudy bands narrowing over the ocean, and suggested this was a contributor to warming. They did NOT claim that this was the ONLY factor, nor that the land was not important, only that they did not analyze that data.

I’m appalled, but not surprised about the Science editors bouncing this paper without explanation. Many scientists will tell you that all their most original papers were rejected without consideration by Science or Nature, but the really obvious ones were accepted. Albert Szent Gyorgyi said that when he got a paper accepted by Science or Nature he was really worried because it must have been trivial!

From: Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 11:30 AM
To: Georg Hansen <geo...@msn.com>
Cc: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>, Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>, Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>, Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>, Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ERA] Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Hansen - Global Warming Has Accelerated

Dear colleagues,

I feel that many of us may not be on the same page. It's not about "natural carbon capture", it is about forests and clouds. Goessling et al. 2024 presented evidence that the anomalous warming in 2023 was due to an anomalous (not long term!) reduction in the low-level clouds. Please take a look where this reduction was located, over the Amazon and Congo forests.

Note that the low-level clouds are those clouds that definitely cool the Earth. High convective clouds including those studied by Tselioudis et al. 2024 can also warm the Earth due to their high greenhouse effect, and their net cooling effect is therefore smaller.

Below you will find a 300-words' commentary that an international team of scientists, including myself, working at the interface of ecology and climatology submitted to Science drawing attention to the fact that disruption of the biosphere could have resulted in the abruptly anomalous warming. Science declined to publish it without explanations. I don't understand this, can it be that someone authoritative has tabooed this topic? But the silence is becoming pathological, in my opinion. No one has ever mentioned the biosphere!

In the meantime, as Indonesia braces for clearcutting their forests for agriculture, let us prepare for another temperature spike while we are discussing measures that have not been possible, and won't be possible to take any time soon. Please take a look what happens to low-level clouds when forests are converted to pastures

The y-axis shows the frequency of low-level clouds, the x-axis (roughly) shows the intensity of photosynthesis. For highly productive systems, the reduction in clouds is maximum!

Meanwhile with forest protection, as Brazil under the previous Lula's term has shown, it is very realistic to stop the destruction of primary forests and thus avert the worst from happening while we are deciding long term strategies. Again, it is not about carbon. It is about the regulation of temperature by natural ecosystems via cloud formation and evapotranspiration, a concept that turns out to be exceptionally hard to conceive for most vocal climate scientists.

Also, the "Fix our forests" act in the US will be a climate disaster.

Best wishes,

Anastassia

Seeing Forests Through Clouds https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17208

Goessling et al. (1) link the record-breaking warming anomaly of 2023 to a global albedo decline due to reduced low-level cloud cover. What caused the reduction remains unclear. Goessling et al. considered several geophysical mechanisms, including ocean surface warming and declining aerosol emissions, but did not discuss the biosphere. We propose that disruption of global biospheric functioning could be a cause, as supported by three lines of evidence that have not yet been jointly considered.

First, plant functioning plays a key role in cloud formation (2–7). In one model study, converting land from swamp to desert raised global temperature by 8 K due to reduced cloud cover (8). In the Amazon, the low-level cloud cover increases markedly with the photosynthetic activity of the underlying forest (9).

Second, in 2023, photosynthesis on land experienced a globally significant disruption, as signalled by the complete disappearance of the terrestrial carbon sink (10). Terrestrial ecosystems, which typically absorb approximately one-fourth of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, anomalously ceased this function. This breakdown was attributed to Canadian wildfires and the record-breaking drought in the Amazon (11).

Third, Goessling et al. focus on changes over oceans, but their maps show that some of the largest reductions in cloud cover in 2023 were over land, including over Amazonian and Congolian forests. Another cloud reduction hotspot is evident over Canada. Besides, precipitation over land in 2023 had a major negative anomaly, −0.08 mm/day (12).

Growing pressure on forests is known to induce nonlinear feedbacks, including abrupt changes in ecosystem functioning (13–15). Feedbacks of similar strength in global climate models are unknown (16). The biospheric breakdown in 2023 may have triggered massive cloud cover reduction facilitating the abrupt warming.

If verified, the good news is that the recent extra warmth could wane if the forests partially self-recover. With the many unknowns remaining, we urge more integrative thinking and emphasize the importance of urgently curbing forest exploitation to stabilize both the climate and the biosphere (17,18).

Anastassia M. Makarieva, Andrei V. Nefiodov, Antonio D. Nobre, Luz A. Cuartas, Paulo Nobre, Germán Poveda, José A. Marengo, Anja Rammig, Susan A. Masino, Ugo Bardi, Juan F. Salazar, William R. Moomaw, Scott R. Saleska (authors’ affiliations at https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17208 )

Cited references

1. H. F. Goessling, T. Rackow, T. Jung, Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedo. Science 387 (6729), 68–73 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq7280

2. D. F. Zhao, et al., Environmental conditions regulate the impact of plants on cloud formation. Nat. Commun. 8 (1), 14067 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14067

3. T. Dror-Schwartz, I. Koren, O. Altaratz, R. Heiblum, On the abundance and common properties of continental, organized shallow (green) clouds. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 59 (6), 4570–4578 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2020.3023085

4. S. Cerasoli, J. Yin, A. Porporato, Cloud cooling effects of afforestation and reforestation at midlatitudes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118 (33), e2026241118 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 2026241118

5. G. Duveiller, et al., Revealing the widespread potential of forests to increase low level cloud cover. Nat. Commun. 12, 4337 (2021), https://doi.org10.1038/s41467-021-24551-5

6. R. Xu, et al., Contrasting impacts of forests on cloud cover based on satellite observations. Nat. Commun. 13, 670 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28161-7

7. D. Ellison, J. Pokorný, M. Wild, Even cooler insights: On the power of forests to (water the Earth and) cool the planet. Glob. Change Biol. 30 (2), e17195 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17195

8. M. M. Laguë, G. R. Quetin, W. R. Boos, Reduced terrestrial evaporation increases atmospheric water vapor by generating cloud feedbacks. Environ. Res. Lett. 18 (7), 074021 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1.

9. R. H. Heiblum, I. Koren, G. Feingold, On the link between Amazonian forest properties and shallow cumulus cloud fields. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14 (12), 6063–6074 (2014), https://doi.org/10.5194/ acp-14-6063-2014

10. P. Ke, et al., Low latency carbon budget analysis reveals a large decline of the land carbon sink in 2023. Natl. Sci. Rev. 11 (12), nwae367 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwae367

11. J.-C. Espinoza, et al., The new record of drought and warmth in the Amazon in 2023 related to regional and global climatic features. Sci. Rep. 14 (1), 8107 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-58782-5.

12. R. F. Adler, G. Gu, Global precipitation for the year 2023 and how it relates to longer term variations and trends. Atmosphere 15 (5), 535 (2024), https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15050535

13. D. C. Zemp, et al., Self-amplified Amazon forest loss due to vegetation-atmosphere feedbacks. Nat. Commun. 8, 14681 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14681

14. A. M. Makarieva, et al., The role of ecosystem transpiration in creating alternate moisture regimes by influencing atmospheric moisture convergence. Glob. Change Biol. 29 (9), 25362556 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16644

15. B. M. Flores, et al., Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system. Nature 626 (7999), 555–564 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06970-0

16. W. R. Boos, T. Storelvmo, Reply to Levermann et al.: Linear scaling for monsoons based on well-verified balance between adiabatic cooling and latent heat release. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 (17), E2350–E2351 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603626113

17. W. R. Moomaw, S. A. Masino, E. K. Faison, Intact forests in the United States: Proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Front. For. Glob. Change 2 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00027

18. A. M. Makarieva, A. V. Nefiodov, A. Rammig, A. D. Nobre, Re-appraisal of the global climatic role of natural forests for improved climate projections and policies. Front. For. Glob. Change 6 (2023), https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1150191

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 6:47 PM Georg Hansen <geo...@msn.com> wrote:

I agree with you, but what is there to lose? If he still cares about environmental issues, this might be an option for him to do something without attacking the Rs' and DT's dogmatic resistance against fossil fuel reductions. If he doesn't care, it just was an attempt from your side. That's what I mean with cynical.

Georg

-----------------------------------------------------

Nyberg Urtegård G. Hansen

Stuertvegen 27

9014 Tromsø

Tel. 46432945

Webpage: http://www.urtegard.no

E-post: geo...@msn.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nybergurtegard/

From: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Sent: 06 February 2025 16:38
To: Georg Hansen <geo...@msn.com>
Cc: Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>; Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>; Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ERA] Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Hansen - Global Warming Has Accelerated

Georg,

I guess anything is possible but RFK Jr has gone over to the dark side and it’s hard to know what if anything he really stands for anymore except loyalty to Trump.

Here’s an RFK Jr quote from a Guardian article that shows a level of delusion I’m not sure I’ve ever seen before.

“Republicans are focused on protecting the environment, protecting habitat, protecting our children from these toxic chemicals, and the Democratic party and the associated environmental groups have forgotten about that mission.”

This as the Republicans are unified in their systematic and eager dismantling of virtually every environmental protection program that has been adopted by the United States in the last half century including many that were first proposed by Richard Nixon.

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

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

On Feb 6, 2025, at 10:27 AM, Georg Hansen <geo...@msn.com> wrote:

I could imagine RFK jr. could be an "entrance gate" in this direction. He was an environmental lawyer for many years, and he has currently close connection to the regenerative community in the US, e.g., to Joel Salatin (Polyface Farm). Such people should be open to natural carbon capture.

Georg

-----------------------------------------------------

Nyberg Urtegård G. Hansen

Stuertvegen 27

9014 Tromsø

Tel. 46432945

Webpage: http://www.urtegard.no

E-post: geo...@msn.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nybergurtegard/

From: ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Georg Hansen <geo...@msn.com>
Sent: 06 February 2025 16:07
To: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>; Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ERA] Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Hansen - Global Warming Has Accelerated

Maybe it's time to become cynical. With the new administration in place in the US, and the increasing gap between pleads and action in other main emitter countries in the West, the mainstream solution of the climate issue, i.e., reduction of GHG emissions, is farther away than any time before. Maybe, by selling in this alternative way as a possibility to achieve climate-relevant results much quicker (and mentioning that China is way ahead of the US on this field right now), there might be some in the red camp (R) that listen...

Kind regards

Georg Hansen

-----------------------------------------------------

Nyberg Urtegård G. Hansen

Stuertvegen 27

9014 Tromsø

Tel. 46432945

Webpage: http://www.urtegard.no

E-post: geo...@msn.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nybergurtegard/

From: 'rob de laet' via EcoRestoration Alliance <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 06 February 2025 14:46
To: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>; Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ERA] Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Hansen - Global Warming Has Accelerated

If we turn things upside down and listen to Lovelock and work from the premises that the atmosphere, the weather and climate are largely produced by the totality of the biosphere, you get a completely different picture and a new tool set on how to reverse global warming.

Rob de Laet

Member of the EcoRestoration Alliance

Fellow of Global Evergreening Alliance

Co-founder of Senang Eco Services

WhatsApp: +55 71 992617846

On Thursday 6 February 2025 at 13:59:08 CET, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:

Biological feedbacks involving transpiration and respiration are pretty much ignored in most physical climate models, so their feedbacks are underestimated!

From: rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 6:12 AM
To: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>, Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>, Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>, 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>, Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>, Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ERA] Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] Hansen - Global Warming Has Accelerated

It is absolutely crazy! My guestimate is that more than half of the spike in temperature in 2023 and 2024 is caused by the collapse of the biotic pump over the Amazon and the drought in Amazon and Congo resulting in starkly diminished evapotranspiration, low cloud formation, rain recycling and export of heat out in to space caused by recondensation of evapotranspired moisture.

Best

Rob de Laet

Member of the EcoRestoration Alliance

Fellow of Global Evergreening Alliance

Co-founder of Senang Eco Services

WhatsApp: +55 71 992617846

On Thursday 6 February 2025 at 08:21:54 CET, Anastassia Makarieva <ammak...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

Am I alone to notice that Hansen et al. 2025 while having as their goal to disentangle aerosol forcing from albedo feebacks, do not discuss or even quote the recent study of Goessling et al. 2024 who allegedly already explained the 2023 temperature surge by attributing it to cloud cover change? (which by the way was in 2023 maximized over the continents).

What could be the cause of this omission, or did I miss something?

Best wishes,

Anastassia

Dr. Anastassia M. Makarieva

Theoretical Physics Division

Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute

Russia

https://bioticregulation.substack.com

https://bioticregulation.ru

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 2:30 AM H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Robert,

Here is Laurie Laybourn’s response to the Hansen paper.

I like his concept of ‘ unrevealed risk’ that he asserts is now much greater if the paper is correct.

Laurie was the featured speaker along with Robert at an important HP meeting focused on tipping points held several months ago.

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

Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; 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

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:

From: H simmens <hsim...@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.

--
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/5771F23D-CFEC-4845-B8F7-A3FD33DB9683%40gmail.com.

--
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/CAKz3-9-op7gZepOVX8bGRmTwf7k5zWQ7sygjHa2PT%2Bz0MAWHcA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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/BY3PR13MB4994A851E90406CD46670AAEDDF62%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

--
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/1686086760.9247718.1738849592827%40mail.yahoo.com.

--
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/GV2PR03MB8802F54F9AC0AEBF1E366547BDF62%40GV2PR03MB8802.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com.

John Nissen

unread,

Feb 6, 2025, 5:32:46 PM2/6/25

to daleanne bourjaily, Tim Foresman, Robbie Tulip, Tom Goreau, Michael MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Ron Baiman

Thanks for that, Daleanne.

I will add some of the points to the letter to The Economist, that I am drafting, hopefully with help from Ron.

Cheers, John

Tom Goreau

unread,

Feb 6, 2025, 5:34:49 PM2/6/25

to John Nissen, daleanne bourjaily, Tim Foresman, Robbie Tulip, Michael MacCracken, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, Peter Wadhams, Ron Baiman

What I was trying to say is that you could make all the key points in about half the words with careful editing of superfluous words. But you need to immediately. They will like to hear about dollar benefits……

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxrPDRJVP9uB%2B3NCnpjQCxQvvUS0afoWHB7wZAWjpmZztA%40mail.gmail.com.

Tom Goreau

unread,

Feb 6, 2025, 6:42:17 PM2/6/25

to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com <CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com>, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, EcoRestoration Alliance

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

Dana Woods

unread,

Feb 6, 2025, 7:22:42 PM2/6/25

to Tom Goreau, CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com <CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com>, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, EcoRestoration Alliance

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.

H simmens

unread,

Feb 6, 2025, 7:27:02 PM2/6/25

to Dana Woods, Herb Simmens, Tom Goreau, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, EcoRestoration Alliance

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

Herb

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

Dana Woods

unread,

Feb 6, 2025, 7:29:22 PM2/6/25

to H simmens, Tom Goreau, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, EcoRestoration Alliance

Thankfully he can't disable Copernicus but still as I said ...

Dana Woods

unread,

Feb 7, 2025, 6:01:26 PM2/7/25

to H simmens, Tom Goreau, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, EcoRestoration Alliance

Apologies to the group for what I said above about Trump. That shouldn't have been said in this group's email

Regards, Dana

Ron Baiman

unread,

Feb 7, 2025, 7:13:03 PM2/7/25

to H simmens, Dana Woods, Tom Goreau, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, EcoRestoration Alliance

Inspired by this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/07/musk-congress-doge-angry-calls/

I called my Rep and both Senators (one at his local office as he was no longer answering ot taking messages at his DC office) complaining about Musk. They're all Trumpers (I live in Madison just outside the City of Nashville which is solidly Dem) so I stuck to complaining about Musk - not mentioning Trump's roll in all of this.

Ron

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/81DEF6F1-6D1B-4567-AD4E-541DA91CDD2A%40gmail.com.

Oswald Petersen

unread,

Feb 8, 2025, 5:38:00 AM2/8/25

to Ron Baiman, H simmens, Dana Woods, Tom Goreau, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Planetary Restoration, healthy-planet-action-coalition, EcoRestoration Alliance

Well done Ron!

To break this Zombie Government it is advisable to make the Zombies kill each other.

Regards

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen