What exactly is the "Climate Science, Awareness & Solutions" entity siting in the Earth Institute at Columbia University? (https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/giving).
Certainly not a simple research group. "...by pairing Dr. Hansen’s scientific work with an outreach effort there is a potential for communication, over and above normal press coverage accompanying new scientific publications."
It's Hansen's personal project, which is a combination of his science and activism. The lines are too blurry there - and I say this even though I deeply respect his half century of work on this problem. Here's more from me on his long journey: https://revkin.substack.com/p/hansen-on-a-human-heated-planet-its
I wonder the appropriate role of the university in things like this. Not to take sides of course. But what role for universities when profs run research advocacy groups/organizations under the university label?
I sense researchers at his level have enormous latitude and it seems crowd funding is increasingly common (distinct from university policies on using their websites to host this kind of thing): Inside Higher ed article: "As a result of increased competition and diminishing federal research funding, it is becoming more difficult for university researchers to bring their scholarly endeavors to life. Though still in their relatively early stages, crowdfunding platforms are becoming a popular mechanism for scientists to raise cash -- quickly." https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/10/academic-researchers-using-crowdfunding-platforms
Mantras that call for general and imprecise actions numb us into mindless repetition of meaningless altruisms (parse that slowly). Let’s talk about actual goals and plausible methods to hit at unambiguous root causes.
For example, destructive extreme weather events, killer extended heat domes in high latitudes (think British Columbia), and deadly deep-freeze blasts in low latitudes (think Texas) are manifestations of abnormal jetstream behavior that drives the Arctic vortex far outside Holocene typical boundaries. That accelerating phenomenon is a result of the Arctic heating up 3 to 4 times faster than the global average warming.
Humanity cannot tolerate increasing damage, disruption and death. The remedy is to take aggressive action to #CoolTheArctic to refreeze the ice cap to restore the polar albedo as a near-term temporary “triage intervention” similar to the application of CPR or a tourniquet to save a life until surgery and long term remedies ramp up.
If 1.5°C is dead, then take action that can cool the atmosphere and the oceans. Restoring the sea life (from algae and plankton and krill up to fisheries and whale populations, all of which humans have “geo transformed” and depleted by myopic, greedy, selfish over-fishing. There are maritime measures that restore life, reduce acidity and cool the oceans, which, in turn cools the atmosphere.
Deploying small scale regional test projects that can be controlled or terminated will give us data and experience that will most likely be needed soon enough when our progeny are faced with a truly disastrous emergency..
Agree, it’s a conundrum ... but with Russian participation in the Arctic Council in hiatus, the six other members could find a way to agreeably conduct careful testing. As a goal, as unlikely or difficult as it may be ... what choice is there?
What if there were a unified demand from the Sámi and global network of indigenous from the Arctic (Canada, Finland, Greenland [Denmark], Norway, Sweden and U.S.) to the AOSIS and all SIDS, to African, Australian and South American indigenous to test a variety of “acceptable” nature-based measures?
I’m working toward exploring this with key influencers through a couple of avenues.
Person in an adaptation field here.. everything people do now say with forests or farms is considered to be “climate adaptation” now. therefore how would we calculate how much everyone is spending, say water engineers road builders and everything about forests and farmlands. Therefore how can we know we’re not spending enough? Global aggregations of silly numerical assumptions don’t do a lot for me. That’s why it’s hard to get excited about these claims.
Yes this is a great point. Dollar accounting in this arena would be super challenging. I do think overall that the best way for carbonized wealthy countries to help foster resilience in poor under-energized ones is through general development assistance and work on corruption reduction, inclusiveness. I recall conversations long ago with Ian Noble (onetime World Bank lead on climate resilient development) on flipping things - making sure any development funding integrates climate resilience assessment. https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/signs-of-new-energy-at-the-world-bank/ Happy to do a webcast on this if you want to help. revkin@substack.com
The Centre for Climate Repair at the University of Cambridge (CCRC) and the Climate Emergency Forum (CEF) present a panel discussion at COP28 in Dubai, UAE on the topic of "No 1.5 Without Intervention."
This video was recorded on December 10th, 2023 at COP28 in Dubai, UAE, and published on January 11th, 2024.
Charles Gregoire who is co-producer of the Climate Emergency Forum along with Heidi Brault, introduces the event. He emphasizes that limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius requires interventions beyond emissions reduction.
Professor Hugh Hunt discusses the SPICE project, investigating stratospheric aerosol injection for solar radiation management (SRM) as well as marine cloud brightening. He emphasizes the importance of research in understanding the risks and benefits of these interventions to address the urgent challenges posed by climate change.
Dr. James Hansen, via video recording, highlights the urgency of addressing climate change, emphasizing the need for intervention due to the already surpassed 1.5-degree threshold.
Anni Pokela, a project manager at Operatio Arktis, emphasizes the severity of the Arctic climate catastrophe and the irreversible damage, even with rapid emissions cuts. She introduces the concept of climate repair, advocating for additional interventions beyond emissions reduction, acknowledging potential risks but stressing the need for research.
No doubt many highly credentialed people have hypothesized and written “compelling” arguments and even done studies that reinforce their theories.
However, none of the hysteria is provable and the “solutions” are not feasible. Moreover, they ( solutions) would do great harm to both developed and developing societies.
We shouldn’t ignore the sun which has a far greater influence than any marginal gases in the atmosphere.
What exactly is the "Climate Science, Awareness & Solutions" entity siting in the Earth Institute at Columbia University? (https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/giving).
Certainly not a simple research group. "...by pairing Dr. Hansen’s scientific work with an outreach effort there is a potential for communication, over and above normal press coverage accompanying new scientific publications."
A desk and bullhorn?
It's Hansen's personal project, which is a combination of his science and activism. The lines are too blurry there - and I say this even though I deeply respect his half century of work on this problem. Here's more from me on his long journey: https://revkin.substack.com/p/hansen-on-a-human-heated-planet-its
https://rumble.com/v1mnbo8-flashback-climategate-2009.html
I wonder the appropriate role of the university in things like this. Not to take sides of course. But what role for universities when profs run research advocacy groups/organizations under the university label?
Happy New Year!
I sense researchers at his level have enormous latitude and it seems crowd funding is increasingly common (distinct from university policies on using their websites to host this kind of thing): Inside Higher ed article: "As a result of increased competition and diminishing federal research funding, it is becoming more difficult for university researchers to bring their scholarly endeavors to life. Though still in their relatively early stages, crowdfunding platforms are becoming a popular mechanism for scientists to raise cash -- quickly." https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/10/academic-researchers-using-crowdfunding-platforms
https://rumble.com/v1mnbo8-flashback-climategate-2009.html
Mantras that call for general and imprecise actions numb us into mindless repetition of meaningless altruisms (parse that slowly). Let’s talk about actual goals and plausible methods to hit at unambiguous root causes.
For example, destructive extreme weather events, killer extended heat domes in high latitudes (think British Columbia), and deadly deep-freeze blasts in low latitudes (think Texas) are manifestations of abnormal jetstream behavior that drives the Arctic vortex far outside Holocene typical boundaries. That accelerating phenomenon is a result of the Arctic heating up 3 to 4 times faster than the global average warming.
Humanity cannot tolerate increasing damage, disruption and death. The remedy is to take aggressive action to #CoolTheArctic to refreeze the ice cap to restore the polar albedo as a near-term temporary “triage intervention” similar to the application of CPR or a tourniquet to save a life until surgery and long term remedies ramp up.
If 1.5°C is dead, then take action that can cool the atmosphere and the oceans. Restoring the sea life (from algae and plankton and krill up to fisheries and whale populations, all of which humans have “geo transformed” and depleted by myopic, greedy, selfish over-fishing. There are maritime measures that restore life, reduce acidity and cool the oceans, which, in turn cools the atmosphere.
Deploying small scale regional test projects that can be controlled or terminated will give us data and experience that will most likely be needed soon enough when our progeny are faced with a truly disastrous emergency..
I get the concept, but even that would be a tough one to carry out even when Russia wasn’t at war with the West.
Agree, it’s a conundrum ... but with Russian participation in the Arctic Council in hiatus, the six other members could find a way to agreeably conduct careful testing. As a goal, as unlikely or difficult as it may be ... what choice is there?
What if there were a unified demand from the Sámi and global network of indigenous from the Arctic (Canada, Finland, Greenland [Denmark], Norway, Sweden and U.S.) to the AOSIS and all SIDS, to African, Australian and South American indigenous to test a variety of “acceptable” nature-based measures?
I’m working toward exploring this with key influencers through a couple of avenues.
Chill the sky isn’t falling
These fools would starve half of the world’s population to cool the earth 1 degree
It’s nice to live in cushy US or Western Europe and preach but try living in SubSahara Africa without electricity
Ever hear of Dr Tim Ball? https://rumble.com/v1mnbo8-flashback-climategate-2009.html
How can it not be a #climateEmergency Andy
Interglacial is ~100ppm∆ in 20k yrs !
were now at 140ppm∆ in 150yrs 👀
Person in an adaptation field here.. everything people do now say with forests or farms is considered to be “climate adaptation” now. therefore how would we calculate how much everyone is spending, say water engineers road builders and everything about forests and farmlands. Therefore how can we know we’re not spending enough? Global aggregations of silly numerical assumptions don’t do a lot for me. That’s why it’s hard to get excited about these claims.
Yes this is a great point. Dollar accounting in this arena would be super challenging. I do think overall that the best way for carbonized wealthy countries to help foster resilience in poor under-energized ones is through general development assistance and work on corruption reduction, inclusiveness. I recall conversations long ago with Ian Noble (onetime World Bank lead on climate resilient development) on flipping things - making sure any development funding integrates climate resilience assessment. https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/signs-of-new-energy-at-the-world-bank/ Happy to do a webcast on this if you want to help. revkin@substack.com
Is calling CC an emergency like yelling the sky is falling? Actually what’s the difference? Neither is true.
CO2 is not our enemy. Try living and thriving without it.
Please come into the present ... start with:
Suggestion 1: Dr. James Hansen January update to his team’s recent ‘Pipeline’ paper:
https://mailchi.mp/caa/groundhog-day-another-gobsmackingly-bananas-month-whats-up
Suggestion #2: Dr. James Hansen, Professor Hugh Hunt and Operaatio Arktis Anni Pokela
COP28 (video) https://youtu.be/IYfiSWVbFuQ
The Centre for Climate Repair at the University of Cambridge (CCRC) and the Climate Emergency Forum (CEF) present a panel discussion at COP28 in Dubai, UAE on the topic of "No 1.5 Without Intervention."
This video was recorded on December 10th, 2023 at COP28 in Dubai, UAE, and published on January 11th, 2024.
Charles Gregoire who is co-producer of the Climate Emergency Forum along with Heidi Brault, introduces the event. He emphasizes that limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius requires interventions beyond emissions reduction.
Professor Hugh Hunt discusses the SPICE project, investigating stratospheric aerosol injection for solar radiation management (SRM) as well as marine cloud brightening. He emphasizes the importance of research in understanding the risks and benefits of these interventions to address the urgent challenges posed by climate change.
Dr. James Hansen, via video recording, highlights the urgency of addressing climate change, emphasizing the need for intervention due to the already surpassed 1.5-degree threshold.
Anni Pokela, a project manager at Operatio Arktis, emphasizes the severity of the Arctic climate catastrophe and the irreversible damage, even with rapid emissions cuts. She introduces the concept of climate repair, advocating for additional interventions beyond emissions reduction, acknowledging potential risks but stressing the need for research.
No doubt many highly credentialed people have hypothesized and written “compelling” arguments and even done studies that reinforce their theories.
However, none of the hysteria is provable and the “solutions” are not feasible. Moreover, they ( solutions) would do great harm to both developed and developing societies.
We shouldn’t ignore the sun which has a far greater influence than any marginal gases in the atmosphere.
https://rumble.com/v1mnbo8-flashback-climategate-2009.html True CO2 caused climate change has been debunked since 2008 when Climategate happened. CO2 is delayed on temp by like 400 years
You are not alone in praising the miracle molecules of the Gas of Life:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/11/attack-of-user-friendly-anime-molecules.html