Re: [ERA] Digest for ecorestoration-alliance@googlegroups.com - 23 updates in 4 topics
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Sue Butler
Feb 13, 2025, 7:40:11 AM2/13/25
to ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com
Yes! Must do!
I love the new understanding of organic vs inorganic atmospheric particulates.
Inorganic atmospheric particulates from dust, deserts and ploughed fields do not enable early condensation as organic cloud condensation nuclei (ccn) do, thus inorganic ccn build retention of moisture in the sky with the sadly familiar cycle of clouds and droughts.
On the otherhand, organic particulates from plants are either small particulates or bacteria that function as ccn, bringing gentle rains and mists. The precipitation is less extreme, tailored to the needs of the vegetation below. Perhaps organic particulates have a more flexible form of hydrophilic capture of the water vapor allowing it to attach and form raindrops in a less extreme way than inorganic particulates.
Protect our greenery as it gentles the rain.
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025, 8:51 AM <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>: Feb 06 02:36PM
To me, that is way down the road, I would say, let's first avert the tipping points and wholesale collapse and then fine tune optimums for a future.
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 14:51:06 CET, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
What does that tool tell us about the optimum relationship between human population and human consumption in a sustainable world?RegardsRobert
From: rob de laet <robd...@yahoo.com>
Sent: 06 February 2025 13:46
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 thatHansen et al. 2025 while having as their goal to disentangle aerosol forcing from albedo feebacks, do not discuss or even quote the recent study ofGoessling 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 maximizedover 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.
|
|
|
|
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:
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 scientistDr 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>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWIswissinfo.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 - SWIswissinfo.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 - SWIswissinfo.ch
So Robert, my question is if human-induced climate change is more or less complex than applying intervention to deal with human-induced climate change that aims to offset further global warming? And, of course, I'd like to hear your reasoning. For climate change itself, the world came up with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. So here is the UNFCCC's objective:
ARTICLE 2
OBJECTIVE
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related
legal instruments that the Conference of theJudith D. Schwartz <judi...@gmail.com>: Feb 06 10:05AM -0500
Absolutely, Rob!
Tom mentioned a presentation by George Tselioudis at NASA. I attended this online presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suFZb2ViHoA <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suFZb2ViHoA>, which may or may not be the same one.
FYI--I wrote to Tselioudis and said this:
I attended the Climate Chat session on Sunday, and appreciate your sharing this important work on cloud cover. One point that I didn’t see discussed is the role of biota—living organisms—in the formation of clouds. For here we have agency: specifically, to help create the conditions for cooling clouds to form. For example, this understanding adds urgency to efforts to stop deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest. I would like to know if the role of biota is something that you have studied, as I am looking into these dynamics and want to have as full a picture as possible….I would like to discuss this with you if that is possible. There is a growing number of people examining biological influences on climate, and I know there would be interest in your response about clouds and biota.
His reply:
Dear Judy,
Thank you for your letter and apologies for the late response. You are right that the role of biota in the formation of clouds is important, and there are several scientists that study those interactions particularly over land. Even though I am aware of those efforts I have not worked on the subject myself. The analysis that I presented concentrates mostly on clouds over ocean where their radiative effects are most pronounced, but cloud changes over areas like the Amazon are also important and need to be studied more intensely. As I mentioned, I have not looked at those issues myself but I may extent my analysis over land areas in the near future.
I haven’t followed up with him, but certainly could.
Judy
www.judithdschwartz.com <http://www.judithdschwartz.com/>
Georg Hansen <geo...@msn.com>: Feb 06 03:07PM
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<mailto:georghh@msn.com><mailto:georghh@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<https://www.linkedin.com/in/robdelaet/>
Member of the EcoRestoration Alliance<https://www.ecorestorationalliance.org/>
Fellow of Global Evergreening Alliance<https://www.evergreening.org/>
Co-founder of Senang Eco Services<https://senangecoservices.com/>
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<https://www.linkedin.com/in/robdelaet/>
Member of the EcoRestoration Alliance<https://www.ecorestorationalliance.org/>
Fellow of Global Evergreening Alliance<https://www.evergreening.org/>
Co-founder of Senang Eco Services<https://senangecoservices.com/>
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<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494> 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<https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq7280> 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<https://bioticregulation.substack.com/p/seeing-forests-through-clouds-a-300>).
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<mailto:hsimmens@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.
[cid:Ua5zwc26uyb55xKP5JD0]
Laurie Laybourn on LinkedIn: Climate change target of 2C is ‘dead’, says renowned climate scientist | 14 comments<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/laurie-laybourn-21592145_climate-change-target-of-2c-is-dead-says-activity-7292857016971067392-i8ng?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAADPf-gBVNnkEg4jgeF7kWH-7c8Cp7fCwCg>
linkedin.com<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/laurie-laybourn-21592145_climate-change-target-of-2c-is-dead-says-activity-7292857016971067392-i8ng?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAADPf-gBVNnkEg4jgeF7kWH-7c8Cp7fCwCg>
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<mailto:robertgchris@gmail.com>> wrote:
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<https://www.linkedin.com/in/zeke-hausfather-7327699/>, 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<mailto:hsimmens@gmail.com>>
Sent: 04 February 2025 17:29
To: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com<mailto:robertgchris@gmail.com>>
Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net<mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net>>; Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch<mailto:oswald.petersen@hispeed.ch>>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com<mailto:robbietulip@gmail.com>>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org<mailto:goreau@globalcoral.org>>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2003@gmail.com>>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restoration@googlegroups.com>>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition@googlegroups.com>>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com<mailto:peter.wadhams@gmail.com>>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com<mailto:ecorestoration-alliance@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch<http://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<mailto:robertgchris@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<mailto:robertgchris@gmail.com>>
Sent: 04 February 2025 13:52
To: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net<mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net>>; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com<mailto:hsimmens@gmail.com>>
Cc: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch<mailto:oswald.petersen@hispeed.ch>>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com<mailto:robbietulip@gmail.com>>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org<mailto:goreau@globalcoral.org>>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2003@gmail.com>>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restoration@googlegroups.com>>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition@googlegroups.com>>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com<mailto:peter.wadhams@gmail.com>>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com<mailto:ecorestoration-alliance@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch<http://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,Georg Hansen <geo...@msn.com>: Feb 06 03:27PM
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<mailto:georghh@msn.com><mailto:georghh@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<mailto:georghh@msn.com><mailto:georghh@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<https://www.linkedin.com/in/robdelaet/>
Member of the EcoRestoration Alliance<https://www.ecorestorationalliance.org/>
Fellow of Global Evergreening Alliance<https://www.evergreening.org/>
Co-founder of Senang Eco Services<https://senangecoservices.com/>
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<https://www.linkedin.com/in/robdelaet/>
Member of the EcoRestoration Alliance<https://www.ecorestorationalliance.org/>
Fellow of Global Evergreening Alliance<https://www.evergreening.org/>
Co-founder of Senang Eco Services<https://senangecoservices.com/>
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<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494> 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<https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq7280> 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<https://bioticregulation.substack.com/p/seeing-forests-through-clouds-a-300>).
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<mailto:hsimmens@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.
[cid:Ua5zwc26uyb55xKP5JD0]
Laurie Laybourn on LinkedIn: Climate change target of 2C is ‘dead’, says renowned climate scientist | 14 comments<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/laurie-laybourn-21592145_climate-change-target-of-2c-is-dead-says-activity-7292857016971067392-i8ng?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAADPf-gBVNnkEg4jgeF7kWH-7c8Cp7fCwCg>
linkedin.com<https://www.linkedin.com/posts/laurie-laybourn-21592145_climate-change-target-of-2c-is-dead-says-activity-7292857016971067392-i8ng?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAADPf-gBVNnkEg4jgeF7kWH-7c8Cp7fCwCg>
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<mailto:robertgchris@gmail.com>> wrote:
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<https://www.linkedin.com/in/zeke-hausfather-7327699/>, 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<mailto:hsimmens@gmail.com>>
Sent: 04 February 2025 17:29
To: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com<mailto:robertgchris@gmail.com>>
Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net<mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net>>; Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch<mailto:oswald.petersen@hispeed.ch>>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com<mailto:robbietulip@gmail.com>>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org<mailto:goreau@globalcoral.org>>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2003@gmail.com>>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com<mailto:planetary-restoration@googlegroups.com>>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalition@googlegroups.com>>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com<mailto:peter.wadhams@gmail.com>>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com<mailto:ecorestoration-alliance@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch<http://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<mailto:robertgchris@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
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages