Forestry based cooling impacts in China
Tom Goreau
Weakened future surface warming in China due to national planned afforestation through biophysical feedback
npj Climate and Atmospheric Science volume 8, Article number: 42 (2025)
Abstract
A national-level afforestation plan has been announced by the Chinese government to combat global warming through carbon sequestration. However, the biophysical feedback of afforestation under future climate scenarios has not yet been assessed. Here, using the Weather Research and Forecast model (WRF) nested by the bias-corrected MPI-ESM1-2-HR model, we simulated how future afforestation regulated the land surface temperature (LST) in China. The results show that afforestation induces a significant cooling effect over the period 2041–2060 under the SSP2-4.5 scenario, in particular in the cold season. The additional cooling effect offsets about 3.69% of the projected LST increase due to global warming and even overcompensates the LST increase in southwestern China. On the diurnal cycles, afforestation induces daytime cooling effects of −0.21 °C caused by increased latent heat fluxes, while nighttime warming effects of 0.05 °C induced mainly by cloud feedback. Our findings highlight the importance of the scientific identification of afforestation areas when developing land-management strategies and biophysical feedback for climate change mitigation.
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.
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 AcceleratedIt 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
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
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.
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 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>
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:
ARTICLE 2
OBJECTIVE
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related
legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt
is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of
the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient
to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to
ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable
economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
So, what if there was an amendment of just a few words, replacing with "atmosphere" with "atmosphere and global average temperature", so adding just four words (or perhaps "atmosphere and global climatic conditions"). That is really all that has to be done and the rest follows. I've not read all the various treaty provisions and the agreements and interpretations provided by those that approved the convention, but if nations will approve the original objective, might approving this one be impossibly hard?
I'm raising this question because the problems facing climate intervention (asking to hold the climate roughly constant) would seem far less challenging that one would expect to be raised by allowing emissions to just keep going up. Has the world really changed so much since 1992 that nations could not be inspired to move forward?
Just wondering.
Best, Mike
On 2/3/25 4:27 PM, Robert Chris wrote:
Hi Herb
I disagree with almost everything you've said here but the bits I agree with are vital. Let's start there.
I agree that creating the kind of entity you describe could change the discourse on cooling in a remarkably short period of time. I think I might have got to that conclusion at about the same time as you, if not before. No argument there!
I also agree that without it, the impetus for cooling will likely to be too little too late. No argument there!
I agree that cooling is less wicked than climate change. But it's still pretty damned wicked. The details you provide to support the case that it isn't very wicked largely misconstrue the nature of wickedness. This is not the place to go into the detail of that. I suggest you go back to the source, it's a great read. Rittel and Webber were town planners, you should love it!
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
The economic arguments are largely irrelevant. No one is going to do SRM because it's cheaper than some alternative.
It's the problem that's wicked, not the proposed solution. Climate change is a wicked problem and by definition that means that no solution is going to solve it, and that includes cooling. We need to understand that we're not looking for solutions. Climate change isn't a problem that's going to be solved, job done, let's move on to the next problem. It's a situation that will have to be constantly managed. Cooling has a vital role in that management but it isn't a solution to climate change.
The reason my hackles go up whenever anyone mentions the Moonshot as an example of what can be done with political will, is that however challenging it might have been as a project, ultimately it was just an engineering challenge. It didn't present any social or political threats to US citizens or the those of other nations or to other nations' political circumstances other than perhaps to the prestige of the Russians. If it had failed, it would just have been a big money pit. Any significant intervention in the global climate is just so much more than that, that it doesn't bear comparison. The problems with cooling are not the technological or even the financial ones you mention. They don't make it wicked or tame. The problems are geopolitical and, over time, climatic. Whatever the scientists today say about SRM, deploying it at scale for a decade or more is going to throw up a stack of issues that they haven't even conceived yet. That's part of what makes it wicked.
Another is that there's no clear stopping point. You don't stop SRM when the climate is 'fixed' because the climate will never be 'fixed'. What does that even mean? Once you start SRM at scale there's no escaping that humanity has taken direct responsibility for managing the global climate. We don't have processes to manage or govern that and it's fanciful to imagine that those processes will just emerge from a bunch of people getting together and being rational and sensible. They raise a whole stack of truly fundamental issues about our relationship with nature that have not been confronted in such a direct manner before.
This is not an argument for cooling not happening. It's an argument for it being wicked and requiring the approaches appropriate to wicked problems. If you treat it like a Moonshot, the great likelihood is that it'll blow up on the launch pad.
Regards
Robert
From: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Sent: 03 February 2025 18:19
To: Chris Robert <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch
Hi. Robert,
Climate change as a whole may be a wicked problem but deploying cooling on an urgent basis to minimize suffering death and collapse appears to be much more straightforward and much less wicked.
There does not appear to be any insurmountable technological or economic barrier to deployment. The arguments and evidence in support of cooling versus ERA are overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of cooling.
The cost benefit ratio is upwards of 1000 to one or more according to Robert Tulip and the Royal Society. Stephan Salter calculated that the annual debt service cost for a fleet of MCB vessels sufficient to cool the climate would be approximately what the security costs were for the Glasgow COP alone. David Keith has made similar calculations regarding the cost benefit ratio for SAI
Therefore the challenge has been and remains finding effective ways to convey how dire our present condition is, how much worse it will get even with the most optimistic projections for emission reductions and how promising several cooling modalities singly or in combination may be for stabilizing and lowering temperature increases.
That may well continue to be a challenging geopolitical problem but hardly inherently insurmountable.
The bottom line is as I have repeatedly observed there is no major international entity - public or private - calling for the deployment of the safest and most effective portfolio of cooling interventions. Which is quite astonishing.
I am highly confident that creating such an entity with an expansive budget, internationally renowned board and extremely well qualified staff could change the discourse on cooling in a remarkably short period of time.
As obvious as it is - at least to me and I believe to you - that such an entity is an absolutely essential component of a strategy to gain acceptance for cooling deployment I have run into strong resistance in my attempts at giving the creation of such an entity a prominent place in the HP’s strategic plan.
As long as those of us engaged on these and other lists choose not to work towards achieving the creation of such an entity or to propose an alternative strategy of equal potential effectiveness the impetus for cooling will likely be insufficient in the very short time left to make it happen.
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Feb 3, 2025, at 12:39 PM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
Herb, the problem with that is that the Moonshot wasn't a wicked problem. Climate change is.
You only have to scratch the surface to realise how dissimilar the two are.
Regards
Robert
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Sent: 03 February 2025 17:35
To: Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch>
Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; Robbie Tulip <robbi...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>; Alliance EcoRestoration <ecorestorat...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch
Hi Oswald,
I assume you meant to address your note to me and not Ron.
There is nothing immutable about scientific timetables. My president established a mission to land on the moon by the end of the decade and the necessary science and technology resources were then mobilized to make it happen. Had that goal not been established it might’ve taken another decade or two to do the science and technology necessary.
A commission or farsighted world leader or two could announce after intensive review of the existing evidence that it is necessary - invoking the precautionary principle - to deploy safe and effective cooling by the end of the decade in order to minimize further suffering, death and collapse.
And X million dollars will be made available to the scientific and technology community to propose and field test the safest and most effective portfolio of cooling techniques by say 2028 with deployment beginning by 2030 or 2032.
Are you saying that we can’t or shouldn’t adopt a top down mission driven approach as I describe above to avoiding existential collapse of civilization and the natural world as we know it?
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
On Feb 3, 2025, at 12:22 PM, Oswald Petersen <oswald....@hispeed.ch> wrote:
Hi Ron,
yes and no.
Yes to many (peer reviewed) papers which describe a consistent strategy out of the mess we are in. You will do your SAI, we are working on the EAMO…
No to a timetable which is dictated by urgency. Science is a very slow and thorough process. It just does not happen fast, no matter what urgency. Science will eventually embrace the right strategy. It will probably take another 10 years. In the sense of GW that’s way too slow. Right. But hectical jumping around does not help, it will not make it faster. Do the hard work. Very detailed, very long, very slow.
No to trying to invoke a grand commission. It won’t happen. Let’s concentrate on things which are possible. This one is not. Not yet.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
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:
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
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
<image001.jpg>
TEMPERATURE ANOMALY, FEBRUARY 2 2025
Figure from Climate Reanalyzer.org: https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=t2anom&ortho=8&wt=1
The scale at right shows the air temperature anomaly 2 meters above the surface for February 2, 2025 in degrees Celsius. The North Pole was nearly 30C above average temperature in the middle of winter!
FEBRUARY 3 2025:
The fact that satellite data showed temperatures reached above melting at the North Pole at the height of Winter is so astonishing, and significant, that it should have been headline global news, yet it passed entirely without notice!
This event was caused by a long tongue of exceptionally warm water that reached the North Pole from the Atlantic Ocean.
On February 3 that tongue of warmer water retreated slightly from the North Pole.
Is nobody looking?
Or are the media and the public so obsessed with fake crises manufactured by politicians in order to monopolize publicity that they no longer care about the existential crisis unfolding before their eyes?
Or are the Orwellian news media totally censored?
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef AllianceChief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer
“The Earth is not dying, she is being killed” U. Utah Phillips
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 3, 2025 at 7:37 AM
To: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Peter Wadhams <peter....@gmail.com>
Subject: [HPAC] How a Swiss-US study challenges what we know about the Gulf Stream system - SWI swissinfo.ch--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxoagP6rtDD5wdKWGuvjVVr%2BxLZoo70mKTrAmugBf4DONQ%40mail.gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB49948EF93BA1C7E824E5411ADDF52%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CABgHNnTK33z1svmtbobUNo7LzckCgA%3DkKziJbwa8JXuy5mrRUw%40mail.gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/94e44ea8-1841-41d4-9011-0ba7003db4fb%40comcast.net.--
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.--
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.
David Price
On Feb 26, 2025, at 3:57 am, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:
Weakened future surface warming in China due to national planned afforestation through biophysical feedback
npj Climate and Atmospheric Science volume 8, Article number: 42 (2025)
Abstract
A national-level afforestation plan has been announced by the Chinese government to combat global warming through carbon sequestration. However, the biophysical feedback of afforestation under future climate scenarios has not yet been assessed. Here, using the Weather Research and Forecast model (WRF) nested by the bias-corrected MPI-ESM1-2-HR model, we simulated how future afforestation regulated the land surface temperature (LST) in China. The results show that afforestation induces a significant cooling effect over the period 2041–2060 under the SSP2-4.5 scenario, in particular in the cold season. The additional cooling effect offsets about 3.69% of the projected LST increase due to global warming and even overcompensates the LST increase in southwestern China. On the diurnal cycles, afforestation induces daytime cooling effects of −0.21 °C caused by increased latent heat fluxes, while nighttime warming effects of 0.05 °C induced mainly by cloud feedback. Our findings highlight the importance of the scientific identification of afforestation areas when developing land-management strategies and biophysical feedback for climate change mitigation.
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.
<image.png>
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
<image.png>
<1738691580579.jpeg>