Quico--The critical question isn't "how bad will it get?"
The key is: WHAT are we going to do about global warming? WHO is going to do it? WHO will pay for it?
We already know that something needs to be done. We don't really need to convince an undefined "them" to do an undefined "something". We know how nature has done it (localized ocean fertilization), and we know that 8000 large corporations have net-zero commitments with budgets already for removing carbon. Now we need to get off the mark and act.
I love Jim Hansen--his talks 25 years ago got me started on this path. I diverged from him 12 years go, focusing on the What to do and Who to do it. He hasn't liked that--What and Whom and When are not scientific questions--they're leadership and moral questions.
Writers need to be discussing what to do, and who to do it.
Hansen makes clear, over the decades, that governments and scientists are not empowered to discuss what to do or whom to do it.
-Margaret Mead said,"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Our climate restoration community is taking on the goal of restoring CO2 and the climate using Nature's safe and efficient methods. Yes it appears that the scientific community is saying to slow down and not act yet, but that's what they're paid to do, as advisors. Advisors must always be conservative.
What is also seldom talked about is that forests and oceans also produce not only Sulphur related cloud condensation nuclei but so much more and all are under stress. One could only assume the negative thermal mass of water and ice is currently helping moderate more extremes.
climate research is speculative, it is tiny compared to the complex interactions not understood and not able to determine overall direction or magnitude of change in any particular direction. the logic is this post is a perfect example - all the rest of the discoveries going on are the same. additionally climate change is inherently gradual regardless of any improved human understanding. it will change gradually and any attempts to adjust it will also have gradual effect. the conclusion should be caution. don't radically change something based on suppositions, and moderate the rate of change toward large smooth flows. hence rapid increasing proportion of GHG should be moderated as feasible but not where it depresses economic development, which brings intensive technology that reduces GHG and habitat degradation. the politicization of climate policy has blocked funding for hydro, fission and natural gas energy across Africa stranding millions in gridless subsistence economy, fortunately the BRICS are starting to pierce the western stranglehold. Politicization has degraded habitat in many regions with windmills and solar farms, simultaneously raising energy prices and leaving regions lacking energy to support automation transition. It has restrained the global development of LNG infrastructure and fission technology development, or N2N, which is the basis of both industrialization and automation, and of GHG moderation. Faux green voting cattle suppressed science by denying the complexity of climate and presenting apocalyptic supposition favoring a political agenda as fact. the election of DJT has done a lot to push the pendulum the other way, to return to scientific research and criticism, which is the natural progression of knowledge anyway, the early guesses were pretty primitive and more and more research is shaping the understanding much more.
I believe that PETER FIEKOWSKY’s comment is right on. We need to have a worldwide dialogue on Climate Restoration rather than its present dialogue on global warming. This would shift the conversation from deeply pessimistic to optimistic – and with good reason.
I would recommend for all to read his book – “Climate Restoration”– written with Carole Douglis. It is clear, concise, and easily understandable. It has become the bible of the Climate Restoration movement.
“That’s why he’s put a specific, falsifiable prediction on the table: global temperatures, measured as a 12-month running mean, will bottom out at around 1.4°C above pre-industrial levels in early 2026 — during the current La Niña — and then rise to around 1.7°C by early 2027, as the next El Niño kicks in.”
Do other climate scientists agree with the import and validity of this test?
So if Hanson is right, then the most rational course of action short term would be switch fuels back to burn as much sulfur as possible in ocean going vessels.
This is basically a nice inverse hypothesis test of aerosol geoengjneering done at scale.
Quico--The critical question isn't "how bad will it get?"
The key is: WHAT are we going to do about global warming? WHO is going to do it? WHO will pay for it?
We already know that something needs to be done. We don't really need to convince an undefined "them" to do an undefined "something". We know how nature has done it (localized ocean fertilization), and we know that 8000 large corporations have net-zero commitments with budgets already for removing carbon. Now we need to get off the mark and act.
I love Jim Hansen--his talks 25 years ago got me started on this path. I diverged from him 12 years go, focusing on the What to do and Who to do it. He hasn't liked that--What and Whom and When are not scientific questions--they're leadership and moral questions.
Writers need to be discussing what to do, and who to do it.
Hansen makes clear, over the decades, that governments and scientists are not empowered to discuss what to do or whom to do it.
-Margaret Mead said,"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Our climate restoration community is taking on the goal of restoring CO2 and the climate using Nature's safe and efficient methods. Yes it appears that the scientific community is saying to slow down and not act yet, but that's what they're paid to do, as advisors. Advisors must always be conservative.
Quico-Good work. Keep writing about this.
What is also seldom talked about is that forests and oceans also produce not only Sulphur related cloud condensation nuclei but so much more and all are under stress. One could only assume the negative thermal mass of water and ice is currently helping moderate more extremes.
Biogenic aerosols. Beyond algal DMS. Less trees less clouds.
climate research is speculative, it is tiny compared to the complex interactions not understood and not able to determine overall direction or magnitude of change in any particular direction. the logic is this post is a perfect example - all the rest of the discoveries going on are the same. additionally climate change is inherently gradual regardless of any improved human understanding. it will change gradually and any attempts to adjust it will also have gradual effect. the conclusion should be caution. don't radically change something based on suppositions, and moderate the rate of change toward large smooth flows. hence rapid increasing proportion of GHG should be moderated as feasible but not where it depresses economic development, which brings intensive technology that reduces GHG and habitat degradation. the politicization of climate policy has blocked funding for hydro, fission and natural gas energy across Africa stranding millions in gridless subsistence economy, fortunately the BRICS are starting to pierce the western stranglehold. Politicization has degraded habitat in many regions with windmills and solar farms, simultaneously raising energy prices and leaving regions lacking energy to support automation transition. It has restrained the global development of LNG infrastructure and fission technology development, or N2N, which is the basis of both industrialization and automation, and of GHG moderation. Faux green voting cattle suppressed science by denying the complexity of climate and presenting apocalyptic supposition favoring a political agenda as fact. the election of DJT has done a lot to push the pendulum the other way, to return to scientific research and criticism, which is the natural progression of knowledge anyway, the early guesses were pretty primitive and more and more research is shaping the understanding much more.
I believe that PETER FIEKOWSKY’s comment is right on. We need to have a worldwide dialogue on Climate Restoration rather than its present dialogue on global warming. This would shift the conversation from deeply pessimistic to optimistic – and with good reason.
I would recommend for all to read his book – “Climate Restoration”– written with Carole Douglis. It is clear, concise, and easily understandable. It has become the bible of the Climate Restoration movement.
Great summary of the debate!
“That’s why he’s put a specific, falsifiable prediction on the table: global temperatures, measured as a 12-month running mean, will bottom out at around 1.4°C above pre-industrial levels in early 2026 — during the current La Niña — and then rise to around 1.7°C by early 2027, as the next El Niño kicks in.”
Do other climate scientists agree with the import and validity of this test?
So if Hanson is right, then the most rational course of action short term would be switch fuels back to burn as much sulfur as possible in ocean going vessels.
This is basically a nice inverse hypothesis test of aerosol geoengjneering done at scale.