Climate anomalies, ecologic disasters and climate uncertainties: All point to climate being worse than projected

Forest fires

Climate tipping effects may be kicking in

For those tracking the state of the climate, the report published by the BBC showing that tropical forests were being destroyed at the fastest recorded rate over the last year, was frightening, with the prospect of total forest dieback and "savannisation" of these areas is a growing risk.

Compounding the loss of old-growth tropical forests in 2024 (estimated to have covered an area as large as Ireland) and the release of their carbon stores, is the loss of the moisture and climate systems maintained by those forest ecosystems, which previously provided localized cooling effects, produced cloud cover and contributed to the atmospheric moisture necessary for rain. These had also helped to brighten the earth, thereby reflecting more of the sunlight that otherwise would cause heating. This moisture and water cycle activity gets destroyed along with the trees, plants and animal life. This climatic loss to broad areas may be having more of a negative feedback effective on the planet's overall warming than has previously been recognized.

Global Surface Temperature Change (published 2/3/25)

This news add yet more data to the alarming report published in February by Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Pushker Kharecha and a team of sixteen other climate scientists plainly titled "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed? In it, Dr. Hansen's team explains that global temperatures have leaped up more than a half degree (0.7°F or 0.4°C) over the last 2 years, with a total average temperature rise of +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). This reflects a temperature rise over the +1.5°C (or 2.7°F) level that we set as our goal for maximum increase. As of the last year, we've already exceeded that level.

These increases have, according to Hansen, baffled Earth scientists, as the increase's magnitude was literally off the charts. There were multiple explanations presented as to what could have caused such a big increase. Declining aerosol pollution was seen as a key contributor, by reducing nuclei that aided cloud formation and thus reflection of sunlight, thereby effectively darkening earth and allowing more heat to be absorbed. These are very troubling and portentious changes that may, in fact, show that feedback effects are already accelerating the heating impacts of our CO2 emissions, such that they no longer follow a direct relationship.

Dr. Hansen's report received considerable criticism both because it departed scientifically from the mainstream's more conservative consensus of a lower rate of warming and climate "sensitivity," as determined by the IPCC, and because it called for "a complement to the IPCC approach" to "avoid handing young people a dire situation that is out of their control." In a response to some of that criticism, Drs. Hansen and Karecha decried the ad hoc opinions, ad hominem attacks and sense that the media has gravitated towards reporting the opinions of just a small handful of scientists, rather than covering the total community and range of analyses, including their own.

Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, responded to this debate with a substack post titled "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." In it she agreed with Drs. Hansen and Karecha that many scientists were understating the degree of climate forcing but also shared her sense that many of the climate models in use, including Dr. Hansen's, erroneously ignored the major role of the biosphere in the climate destabilization that we are now experiencing. Which may, she argued, partially explain why none of the models predicted the heat anomaly of the 2023 - 2024 time period. Dr. Makarieva writes:

Why is this [i.e. accurate climate models] so important? Unless external causes of this recent temperature anomaly are identified, we may be dealing with a self-reinforcing process — for example, of reduced cloud cover causing more warming, this warming causing even less clouds and so forth until something truly ugly happens to our planet. But, if so, such a process could be started by many factors and does not necessarily need CO₂ to kick off. For example, deforestation-induced reduction of evapotranspiration in the Amazon is associated with extreme heat events. This alone could trigger the warming that could then self-amplify via cloud (or some other) feedbacks.

Whether or not we have permanent self-reinforcing amplification happening with the climate now is being debated, partially thanks to new voices like Dr. Makarieva's, entering the field. What is clear, however, is that the fewer clouds, aerosols, snow cover, sea ice and also more invisible sources of water vapor (such produced by tropical forests and other natural ecosystems) the darker the earth is and the more sunlight gets through and heats the ground, the oceans and the air. This heating further impacts existing vegetation, ice sheets, permafrost and bodies of water negatively, which then also contribute more CO2, more fires, and further darkening of earth's surface. Earth's climate has been in a state of equilibrium for eons. Given what is happening with the climate now, it appears that it is leaving that state of equilibrium.

According to some reports, the Earth has "dimmed" by 0.5% in the past 25 years. We've known this and scientists have been able to track decreases in sea ice at the poles, a major factor in global warming. We're now seeing the climate effects of reductions in aerosols (due to the shipping industry trying to clean up their act and emit less aerosols), and we're seeing reduced cloud cover. The bottom line is that even just looking at cloud feedbacks, the more the climate warms, the fewer the clouds. The fewer the clouds, the more the planet warms. This feedback loop is enough to take us into very dangerous territory. Which is yet another reason why we want to prevent the loss of tropical forests, not just because of the CO₂ impacts but because of the cloud and water vapor impacts. This feedback loop could explain why the rate of heating of the planet has increased beyond what was expected, even by scientists like Zeke Hausfather and James Hansen.

Dr. Hansen continues to urge immediate action and has proposed that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."

References:

BBC, Tropical forests destroyed at fastest recorded rate last year, by Mark Poynting and Esme Stallard, May 20, 2025.

Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?, published in Taylor & Francis, February 3, 2025 by James E. Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, George Tselioudis, Joseph Kelly, Susanne E. Bauer, Reto Ruedy, Eunbi Jeong, Qinjian Jin, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Mark R. Schoeberl, Karina von Schuckmann, Joshua Amponsem, Junji Cao, Anton Keskinen, Jing Li, and Anni Pokela

Biotic Regulation and Biotic Pump Substack, "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." by Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, May 19, 2025.

February 20, 2025

Global warming has accelerated and the news is not getting out: A Report from Dr. James Hansen

Global temperature leaped more than 0.4°C (0.7°F) during the past two years, the 12-month average peaking in August 2024 at +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). Polar climate change has the greatest long-term effect on humanity, with impacts accelerated by the jump in global temperature. We find that polar ice melt and freshwater injection onto the North Atlantic Ocean exceed prior estimates and, because of accelerated global warming, the melt will increase. As a result, shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is likely within the next 20-30 years, unless actions are taken to reduce global warming – in contradiction to conclusions of IPCC. If AMOC is allowed to shut down, it will lock in major problems including sea level rise of several meters – thus, we describe AMOC shutdown as the “point of no return.”

Published by Valerie Gardner in Air pollution, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Extreme weather, REPORTS, Scientific debate, Solving climate

January 4, 2024

Dr. Hansen warning humanity to get its act together, deploy renewables and nuclear

Dr. James Hansen's year-end update contains an admonishment right in the title, "A Miracle Will Occur" Is Not Sensible Climate Policy." Those who have followed his work and his typically well-tempered writing will recognize this as a very strong indictment of what we've not done to date to address climate change. This is, for this mild-mannered scientist, the equivalent of "Hey Guys, Get your S _ _ T together!"

Dr. Hansen proceeds to call "bunk" on the assertions from both the COP 28 Chairman and the UN Secretary General who imply that the goal of keeping temperature rise to below 1.5°C is still feasible. According to Dr. Hansen, the already banked warming will take us beyond 2.0°C "if policy is limited to emission reductions and plausible CO2 removal." In other words, he makes it clear that this is now merely wishful thinking and does not reflect a realistic understanding of the way that emissions released create future warming, which he calls "Global Warming in the Pipeline" and describes in the linked paper.

The only realistic approach is to take true climate analysis that is informed by knowledge of the warming "forcing" effects and to use that to drive decisions about policy options. If we can possibly use the next several years to define and commence more effective policies and courses of action, then there is a modicum of a chance that we can still save the future for our young people. If this isn't a bomb of an alarm, it would be hard to say what else would be, especially because the IPCC has made it very clear that major ecosystems, starting with coral reefs and then, therefore, all marine life, will be threatened with substantial (90%) collapse by 1.5°C and with 100% by 2°C.

Unfortunately, climate science is complicated and most people don't have a good understanding of the "human-made forcings that are driving Earth's climate away from the relatively stable climate of the Holocene (approximately the past 10,000 years.)" Even if they could grasp the implications about climate science from the graphs that Dr. Hansen and his team provide, very few are even reading Hansen's work. These graphs are very scary but clearly they are not being used as the basis for policy discussions by either politicians, government agencies (like the EPA), or by leading environmental groups and that is likely the primary reason why many people are still arguing about renewables versus nuclear power, thinking they have a certain luxury of time, rather than saying "Renewables and nuclear, YES!"

For his part, Dr. Hansen doesn't make it as easy as he could for those with less expertise in climate science. He spends a lot of effort discussing two major climate forcings: greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols (fine airborne particles), which in fact have opposing forcings. But then goes into detail on many other related forcings. This level of detail may provide a more scientifically accurate picture of what is going on but it makes for much sparser readership. Clearly, there are many different kinds of feedback loops, including how the aerosols impact cloud formation, albedo effects and also the way the ocean absorbs a considerable amount of the warming that is happening to our climate. It's important that he understands these effects but it takes considerable sifting work to get to the point that what it all adds up to is that there is much more warming that has occurred than what we are actually now experiencing, so in fact, the effect of warming will be accelerate and we're now seeing this.

Even for those of us who finding climate science fascinating, this 14-page paper is incredibly dense and gets relatively badly bogged down with details on things like cloud forcings, albedo changes, reviewing differences between expected temperatures and real world measurements, catching up with a 40-year old mystery having to do with the last glacial maximum and describing the impacts of an "experiment" that occurred when the International Maritime Organization limited sulfur content in ship fuel and the variability introduced by El Nino and La Nina events. The bottom line of quite extensive discussion that few will wade through, is that global warming is now accelerating. This is very important but definitely buried. The key graphic of the whole paper depicts this acceleration.

On page 7, we finally get to the implications of global warming acceleration. As shown in the above graph, were the warming happening at a steady rate, we'd be on the green dotted line. Instead, we are veering off into the yellow zone of accelerated warming, which means that we'll "exceed the 1.5°C mark within the next few months and reach a level far above 1.5C by May 2024."

Hansen, while recognizing that there could be some up and down based upon El Nino and La Nina effects, believes that the baked in energy imbalance already "in the pipeline" means that it does not serve anybody's interests to "wait a decade to declare that the 1.5°C limit has been breached." In summary, Hansen argues that, "unless purposeful actions are taken to reduce our present extraordinary planetary energy imbalance," the 2°C global warming limit will also be breached.

By its very nature of having a delayed, baked-in response, human-made climate change makes this an intergenerational issue. What we have done in the past is already having consequences but what we do today and going forward will mostly impact the next generation for better or worse.

To his credit, Hansen dives yet again into Climate Policy, unlike most other scientists. This has been long been a huge source of frustration for him and you can almost see him stomping on his own hat, in his anger and impatience with the political processes that have thwarted action. First he reviews just what makes solving cilmate extra hard, starting with the fact that the principal source of GHGs is fossil fuels, which are in his words "extremely beneficial to humanity." They have raised starndards of living worldwide and still provide 80% of the world's energy. "Fossil fuels are readily available, so the world will not give up their benefits without equal or better alternatives." Because of this conundrum, we are near a point of no return, where extreme consequences can spiral out of humanity's control.

Dr. Hansen has been a first-hand witness to humanity's failure to act over the last 35 years or so and his exasperation with that and his desperation to communicate to those in power about our increasingly limited options is abundantly clear. He's been advising governments around the world on possible approaches with little of the urgent response that is warranted. He delves into some of these details but then finally hones on in the three actions that are required to successfully address climate and achieve the bright future we desire for our children.

The first is a near-global carbon tax or fee. It is the sine qua non required to address the "tragedy of the commons" problem" wherein fossil fuels waste products can be dumpted in the atmosphere for free. There can be a range of approaches, yet something that penalizes those dumping GHGs is required to be enacted globally. A corollary to a carbon fee is a "clean energy portfolio standard," with government policies that are far more supportive of nuclear power.

The second major policy requirement, is the need for the West to cooperate with and support the clean energy needs of emerging and developing nations. There are economic imbalances with developed nations having caused the past emissions but emerging nations increasingly being the driver of future emissions:

The clear need is to replace the world’s huge fossil fuel energy system with clean energies,
which likely would include a combination of “renewables” and nuclear power. Even if the
renewables provide most of the energy, engineering and economic analyses indicate that
global nuclear power probably needs to increase by a factor of 2-4 to provide baseload power
to complement intermittent renewable energy, especially given growing demands of China,
India and other emerging economies. The scale of China’s energy needs makes it feasible to drive down the costs of renewables and nuclear power below the cost of fossil fuels.

Lastly, Dr. Hansen proposes that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."

References:

"A Miracle Will Occur" is Not Sensible Climate Policy, by James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Columbia University, Earth Insitute's Climate Science & Solutions, December 7, 2023.

Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Newsletter, "Groundhog Day. Another Gobsmackingly Bananas Month. What’s Up?, sent on January 4, 2024 from the same team.

"Dire Warnings from Dr. Hansen and Team, by Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital, Dec. 22, 2023.

March 24, 2023

IPCC’s Dire Warnings for Humanity ()

The planet is on track for catastrophic warming unless countries take extreme action, according to the IPCC’s latest climate report.

Published by Valerie Gardner in Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Energy transition, Government support, LINKS, Zero emission energy

September 7, 2022

Celebrating A Nuclear Win and the Village that Created It

Diablo Canyon has been saved—for now! Rather than allowing this clean energy producing power plant to be wastefully decommissioned by those who simply dislike nuclear power, the California legislature, under the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom, voted to extend its life by up to 10 years. Senate Bill 846, sponsored by Jordan Cunningham (CA-25, R), passed with nearly unanimous votes in both the Democratically-controlled Assembly and Senate. SB 846 also provides for as much as $1.4 billion in loans from California to PG&E for re-licensing and enables PG&E to also submit a timely application to the DOE's Civil Nuclear Credit program for further aid in re-starting licensing with the NRC and transitioning back to full-operating mode. This is a nearly miraculous win for California's pronuclear advocates and it is worth celebrating both the win and the broader community that made it possible.

While there are a lot of individuals and organizations who contributed to setting the stage for this phenomenal political win for nuclear power in general and Diablo Canyon specifically, there were also considerable underlying political realities that effectively forced the Governor's hand. In particular, the state's own energy experts from CALISO, CEC, as well as academia and industry, expressed extreme alarm at the high level of fragility of the grid and the high risk of power outages even with Diablo Canyon operating. The closure of Diablo Canyon was clearly going to exacerbate the already bad situation. Climate change and state clean energy mandates made the CPUC's plan to replace Diablo Canyon's clean energy with dirty coal power from PacifiCorp anathema to the both the state's goals and the Governor's political reputation. Meanwhile, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has resulted in dire energy shortages in Europe and rising gas prices. This is making the world's growing reliance on natural gas both uneconomical and politically unsavory.

With that as the political and economic backdrop, we wish to take a look at some of the individuals and groups that took on prominent roles advocating for nuclear power in general and for Diablo Canyon specifically. Some of these groups worked behind the scenes and some played highly prominent roles. The press has recognized the advocacy of the San Luis Obispo-based Mothers for Nuclear, which has consistently stood up for Diablo Canyon at local hearings, rallies and in the press. This mom-led non-profit further coordinated with Isabelle Boemeke, a model-turned "nuclear influencer," whose online presence "Isodope," introduced a witty, stylish and slightly snarky approach to pronuclear advocacy, sharing her frank messaging with a new generation. Together, they organized several recent and memorable public events, a rally on behalf of Diablo Canyon and the issuance of letter to Governor Newsom signed by 79 prominent scientific experts. As impactful as both of those campaigns were, their success rested upon a foundation of public opinion that had grown stronger due to very considerable contributions from the following very notable individuals and groups:

The Pronuclear Village

Nuclear-Focused Writers

James Conca, Forbes
Robert Bryce, Forbes and other
Michael Shellenberger, Forbes, Environmental Progress
Rod Adams, Atomic Insights
Catherine Clifford, CNBC

Academics & Scientists

Dr, James Hansen, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, at the Earth Institute of Columbia University
Dr. Todd Allen, University of Michigan
Dr. Jacopo Buongiorno, MIT
Dr. Steven Chu, Stanford University
Dr. Jesse Jenkins, Princeton
Dr. Jessica Lovering, University of Colorado, Boulder
Also, another 75 or so who signed the February 2022 letter to Governor Newsom

Non-Profits & Think Tanks

The Breakthrough Institute, Ted Nordhaus
Clean Air Task Force, Armond Cohen
Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Carl Wurtz, Dr. Gene Nelson
Anthropocene Institute, Carl Page
The Long Now, Stewart Brand
Energy for Humanity, Kirsty Gogan
Nuclear Innovation Alliance, Judi Greenwald
TerraPraxis, Erik Ingersoll, Kirsty Gogan
Good Energy Collective, Dr. Jessica Lovering, Suzy Hobbs Baker, Dr. Rachel Slaybaugh
Energy Impact Center, Bret Kugelmass
Energy for Humanity, Kirsty Gogan
Fastest Path to Zero, Dr. Todd Allen, at the University of Michigan
Climate Protection & Restoration Initiative, Dr. James Hansen, Donn J. Viviani and others
The Nature Conservancy, Mark Tercek
The World Resources Institute

Podcasters

Titans of Nuclear, Bret Kugelmass
The Atomic Show, Rod Adams
Decouple Podcast, Dr. Chris Keefer
Energy Impact Podcast, Bret Kugelmass
Climate Fix, Colby & Phil
Columbia Energy Exchange, Jason Bordoff, Bill Lovelass
Cowen’s Energy Transition Podcast, Marc Bianchi

Organizers & Advocates

Environmental Progress, Michael Shellenberger
Mothers for Nuclear, Heather Hoff and Kirstin Zaitz
Save Clean Energy, Isabelle Boemeke
Generation Atomic, Eric Meyers
Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal, Madison Hilly
Stand Up for Nuclear, Paris Ortiz-Wines
Emergency Reactor, Zion Lights
Climate Coalition, Valerie Gardner, Gary Kahanak
Nuclear New York, Dr. Dietmar Detering, Isuru Seneviratne
US Nuclear Industry: NEI, ANS, USNIC, NIA, INPO, etc.
International: IPCC, WNA, IAEA, WNN, etc.

Artists & Authors

Robert Stone, Pandora’s Promise (documentary)
Dave Schumacher, The New Fire (documentary)
Robert Bryce, Juice (documentary) and author of "A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations"
Oliver Stone, Nuclear: Time to Look Again (a new documentary, being released now)
Joshua Goldstein, "A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow"
Meredith Angwin, “Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of our Electric Grid” and "Campaigning for Clean Air"
Dr. Robert Hargraves, author of "Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal"
Michael Bloomberg, co-author of "Climate of Hope"
Gwyneth Cravens, author of "Power to Save the World: The Truth about Nuclear Energy"
Mathijs Beckers, author of "Highway to Dystopia: About spaceship Earth, Climate Change and more"
Isabelle Boemeke, creator of the “Isodope” TicTok videos and tweets
Baba Brinkman, Nuclear/Science rapper

Influencers

Stewart Brand, The Whole Earth Catalog
Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Dr. Gene Nelson
What is Nuclear, Nick Touran
Radiant Energy, Mark Nelson
Thorium Energy Alliance, John Kutsch
Google, Ross Koningstein (IEEE, White Papers)
D.J. LeClear, The Rad Guy
TEA, Silicon Valley, Alex Cannara
Save Clean Energy, Isabelle Boemeke
Citizen’s Climate Lobby, Jim Hopf (Nuclear group)
4^th Generation Blog, Canon Bryan, Amelia Tiemann
Rethinking Nuclear, Richard Steeves

Politicians & Biden Admin

Trump Administration & Congress, laid a foundation with the passage of NEIMA & NEICA
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, loudly pronuclear
Senator Cory Booker, introduced his support of nuclear power during the 2019 Primary Climate Debates
President Joe Biden, ushered in the Energy Bill of 2020, which funded the Advanced Reactor Development Program (ARDP), to accelerate commercialization of the next generation of reactors
Dept. of Energy, Secr. of Energy, Jennifer Granholm, worked overtime to introduce the Civil Nuclear Credit program in a timely way, plus, she has posted many great videos about the need for nuclear to address climate
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has expressed her support for the protection of the Palisades Nuclear Power plant and now for Holtec's application to restart it
The Infrastructure & Jobs Act, set up the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, with a $6 billion fund to save nuclear power plants, such as Palisades and Diablo Canyon
Representative Elaine Luria, has introduced a bevy of important nuclear energy bills, including the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (’19), Nuclear Power Purchase Agreements Act (’21), and Fueling our Nuclear Future Act (’22)
All of Congress, has used voice votes to approve key pronuclear pieces of legislation
Senator Diane Feinstein, wrote about her support for Diablo Canyon in a number of OpEds
DOE’s Loan Program Office (LPO), under the leadership of Jigar Shah, has been working to provide Government-guaranteed loans to key projects

Funders

There is a small but dedicated community of funders who have shown a willing to support many of the above non-profits, as well as the various artistic and advocacy campaign initiatives. We are greatful to them, as they have allowed much of the work that others have not been willing to fund, to be produced.

[Please note: All of the above listed groups have websites that are available online. Legislation is all searchable. We are not able to provide links for every group but have provided for some that may be harder to find. If you have trouble finding information you need, please reach out through our contact form. We have had a prime seat for the last decade or so to follow the events but we cannot possibly include everyone or every group that is active in this space. However, if you think we have omitted an important contributor who should be listed as having had a meaningful impact on the decision to save Diablo Canyon, please use the comment box below to send us a private message.]

Published by Valerie Gardner in Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Environmental support for nuclear, Government support, International support for nuclear, Investor activity, NEWS, Nucleation communications, Philanthropic support for nuclear, Politicians supporting nuclear, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, US technological leadership, Women in Nuclear

August 10, 2021

FT editors urge nuclear adoption to avert ‘hell on earth’

Anyone who read the IPCC's Sixth Assessment's Working Group 1 report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, found it very disturbing. The editors of the Financial Times editors used the moment to publish an editorial entitled Time is running short to avert 'hell on earth.'

Editors don't mince words. They made it clear that what is at stake is the question of whether or not humanity will take the actions now that will ensure that the earth remains livable. The reported concensus of 234 international scientists is stark enough: disruptive weather events, droughts, heatwaves, forest fires and a hotter world are already locked in for decades or more and will continue to even get worse as more emissions are added. However, if we heed the recommendations of the IPCC's most optimistic scenario and effect "immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions" in emissions, we have a small chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.6 degrees C above pre-industrial temperatures, rather than allowing them to mushroom higher, leaving room for a tragically degraded but habitable earth.

As frightening as this prospect may seem, this is not the time to throw up our hands, according to the editors. Rather this is the time that global leaders' resolve must focus on taking every option and available route possible to achieve net zero and achieve agreement at COP26 summit in Glasgow in November on dramagic goals. Which means that Boris Johnson and other world leaders must resist political pressure from those who still doubt and question the severity of climate change. This is, by now, a no-brainer.

But the editors proceed into bold and even downright courageous territory, where few intellectual leaders dare to tred. They emphasize that, while there are economic gains and returns to be gotten through the investment in innovation that are necessary for the path to net zero, we need to recognize that actually cutting carbon-intensity of nearly all of mankinds' activities will cause some real pain and not always be cost-effective. Furthermore, they write:

The IPCC report also should prompt environmental campaigners to abandon some traditional prejudices, particularly against nuclear power. Smaller nuclear plants deserve investment for the role they could play in generating carbon-free electricity.

They go on to proclaim: "attitudes . . . need rethinking," not just about nuclear power but also about geo-engineering, which is the use of various methods to temporarily keep the planet from being warmed by injecting some artificial means of atmospheric solar intervention that prevents the sun's rays from heating up the free GHGs in the atmosphere. These are brave pronouncements, since they run counter to the ideology of most progressive-minded environmentalists, and they really don't like it when people do that.

Read the FT's editorial, Time is running short to avert 'hell on earth,' published August 10, 2021. (Click the cartoon insert to see an image of the FT's editorial.)

Published by Nucleation Capital in Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, LINKS, Solving climate

August 9, 2021

IPCC’s Landmark Report: Climate Change is Well Underway

Climate Change is well underway and many of the physical changes observed globally have baked in forces that will create increasingly worsening conditions for decades or centuries to come. This is among many findings reported by the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report's Working Group 1 report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
More than 200 scientist-authors reviewed, aggregated and then distilled down the findings from 14,000 peer-reviewed papers to produce the most comprehensive report on the physical state of the planet in the IPCC's 30-year history, clocking in at 13 distinct chapters totally 1,300 pages. These pages and each line of findings were then reviewed, vetted and approved by the scientific representatives of 195 nations, which itself reflects stunning concensus among nations about how bad things are—even if agreement about what to do about the problem is harder to come by.
The briefest of summaries issued in conjunction with the full report is the Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers, which has 14 top-level statements synthesized from the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which is itself 39 pages long. The SPM provides a high-level summary of the understanding of the current state of the climate, including how it is changing and the role of human influence, the state of knowledge about possible climate futures, climate information relevant to regions and sectors, and limiting human-induced climate change.

IPCC reports can be very difficult to read because they cover a range of findings that are reported as either statements of fact or which, because of the difficulty of ascertaining truth with respect to many findings, are thus notated with an assessed level of confidence using pre-set calibration language. Nevertheless, the number 1 finding is:

It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.

Read the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report's Working Group 1 report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, released August 9, 2021.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, History Timeline, LINKS

June 23, 2021

Severe climate impacts coming sooner than expected

AFP, a news and fact checking organization, broke a story based upon having reviewed a 4,000 page draft of an IPCC report that is being updated by thousands of IPCC scientist-volunteers, which provides the starkest and most dire status update on the state of the climate of any report. While the IPCC's own timetable has the report publication scheduled for early 2022, the AFP's review indicates that the report will establish that the impacts of our CO2 pollution will cause catastrophic changes, especially on our coasts, well before previously estimated. The AFP was so alarmed, they produced a series of videos highlighting the findings in the draft report, such as this one below (click on the image to leave NucleationCapital.com and go to the AFP's own site, where the video is hosted).

After AFP broke the story, many other news outlets cited the reporting, including Phys.org, in an article titled "Crushing climate impacts to hit sooner than feared: draft UN report," published on June 23, 2021, which reviews how climate impacts will "fundamentally reshape life on Earth in the coming decades," even if we can succeed in reducing emissions going forward, because of baked-in warming effects.
Dangerous thresholds are closer than previously believed and many of the most dire consequeces—unliveable heat, species extinctions, widespread disease, cities lost from sea level rise and water encroachment, collapse of ecosystems including coral reefs—which are already being felt today, will accelerate to menace the lives of the younger generation and those being born today.
See more at the AFP website at: "AFP has world scoop on a draft climate science report," June 23, 2021 (no authors listed) and at Phys.org, "Crushing climate impacts to hit sooner than feared: draft UN report," June 23, 2021, by Marlowe Hood, Patrick Galey and Kelly MacNamara.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Extreme weather, LINKS

October 29, 2019

All Pathways to 1.5°C Limit Include Nuclear

Hoesung Lee, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), delivered an address on the opening day of the International Conference on Climate Change and the Role of Nuclear Power, held in Vienna in the second week of October. 2019. He will review the findings of the report released a year ago by the IPCC, which featured four model pathways for limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the threshold at which most experts believe the worst impacts from climate change can still be avoided. All four model pathways included increases in nuclear power generation by 2050, ranging between 59% and 501%.

To support the low-carbon energy transformation needed to achieve climate change goals, the conference focused on opportunities and challenges for nuclear power development. To this end, organizers brought together representatives of low-carbon energy sectors, international organizations and national experts.

IAEA Acting Director General Cornel Feruta opened the conference. Other prominent speakers included Liu Zhenmin, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; William D. Magwood, IV, Director-General of the NEA ; Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency; LI Yong, Director General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization; and senior officials and scientists from 75 countries including Argentina, China, Egypt, France, India, Mongolia, Morocco, the Russian Federation and the United States of America.

“Nuclear power has long made a major contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and currently produces one-third of the world’s low carbon electricity while also supporting sustainable development and fulfilling growing energy demands,” said IAEA Deputy Director General Mikhail Chudakov, Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy. “We are honoured that Dr. Hoesung Lee, one of the world’s leading scientific voices on climate change, is bringing his expertise to this first-of-a-kind conference.”

Read more at the International Atomic Energy Agency, "IPCC Head to Speak at International Conference on Climate Change and the Role of Nuclear Power," by Jeffrey Donovan, August 29, 2019.

Published by Nucleation Capital in 100% Renewables, Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate policy, Environmental support for nuclear, Future of Energy, History Timeline, LINKS, Politicians supporting nuclear, Scientific debate, Solving climate

July 3, 2019

Michael Liebreich talks about nuclear power

Michael Liebreich, founder and senior contributor to BloombergNEF, takes a hard look at the decisions that we need to make about how we plan to transition our energy systems to eliminate emissions over the next 11 years and conducts what might be called a "come to Jesus" discussion with his readers, demanding that they review the data and get real about nuclear power.

First Liebreich provides some very compelling evidence that it would be utterly unrealistic to believe that wind and solar alone could grow at rates that are multiples of their historic rates in order to provide enough zero-carbon power to decarbonize the economy in the near term, even with their low prices.

Among the easiest, cheapest and most impactful actions nations can take to ensure their decarbonization pathway remain headed in the right direction—the "no brainer" decisions upon which any number of countries are already failing—would be to set an "overwhelming priority is to keep existing nuclear plants open."

Liebreich takes exception when it comes to the question of building new traditional nuclear power plants, and makes the case that the Gen III generation of plant designs won’t cut it on based upon economic grounds—given the failure of the industry to deliver Gen III projects on time or on budget. However, he is willing to be convinced that Gen IV nuclear, once developed, might be what we need assuming we can get these designs out within a reasonable time frame—something yet to be determined. But, given the likelihood that we will miss our targets, Liebreich calls for getting "serious about developing SMRs and researching the generation of nuclear technologies that might even follow them."

Read Michael Leibreich's "get real" talk in "Liebreich: We need to talk about nuclear power," published at BNEF.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate policy, Construction costs, Future of Energy, LINKS, Solving climate