 Welcome everyone, thank you for joining an intimate conversation with leading climate scientists to discuss groundbreaking new research on global warming, particularly the, the paper that is now live today on global warming in the pipeline. I'm pleased to introduce Professor Jeffrey sacks, director of the Center of Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network will be moderating this webinar so Jeff over to you. Thank you very much. I'm really thrilled and I'm only going to speak for a moment because we have a very important paper and several of the authors of this important paper on global warming in the pipeline. It's a complicated paper. The message is extremely important, but I think it needs all of the time of the scientists to explain this paper to us. We're going to hear from several of the authors, starting with the lead author James Hansen of Columbia University. And of course, the longtime lead climate scientist for the US government and for NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. And then we'll hear from several colleagues and, and co authors of this very important paper. We are just weeks before the world will gather in Dubai for COP 28. Excuse me. So the message of this groundbreaking paper is extremely important. And Jim, if I could turn it over to you to start us off, I would be most grateful. Thanks very much, yeah. And thanks to your people and your program for hosting this discussion. We're honored. And I also want to, if I can go to the next chart, I want to thank my co authors for their unique scientific expertise and contributions to this paper. And the editor in chief of Oxford open climate change bill co rolling for inviting me to include my perspective about policy implications, which is the final section of the paper. I'm going to have the next chart. So the climate on our remarkable home planet is characterized by delayed response and amplifying feedbacks, which is a recipe to lock in intergenerational injustice. So we climate scientists have an obligation to explain this situation clearly as best we can, especially to young people, and to include the policy implications. Because if we don't include the implications, people who have a special financial interest will make their own conclusions. The next chart in 1979, the Charny report of the US National Academy of Sciences estimated based on climate models that global climate sensitivity was three degrees Celsius for double atmospheric CO2, but a very large uncertainty. Soon thereafter, it was realized that a much more reliable measure of climate sensitivity could be obtained empirically from the precise knowledge of glacial to interglacial CO2 change provided by ice core data. But this empirical evaluation also requires knowledge of global average glacial to interglacial temperature change. And that remained uncertain because of misleading evaluation of glacial sea surface temperatures that persisted for 40 years. The wrong assumption was that microscopic species in the ocean surface layer would migrate as climate change. So they would always be at the temperature they prefer today, rather than partly adapt over millennia to temperature change. Recently, Jessica Charny and her then postdoc Matt Osman, who is our co-author, developed a global temperature analysis omitting the biology data, but using widespread geochemical proxies, isotopes. And Alan Seltzer used noble gas abundances in groundwater from last glacial maximum at latitudes 45 south to 35 north to evaluate global temperatures, glacial temperatures. In our paper, we show that the Tierney-Osman and Seltzer analyses are consistent, implying a glacial to interglacial temperature change of about seven degrees Celsius. So next chart, we now know the surface temperature during the last glacial maximum and the forcings that maintained the ice age cold. Together, these imply a climate sensitivity of about 4.8 degrees Celsius for double CO2. IPCC's best estimate of three degrees is excluded with greater than 99% confidence. This high climate sensitivity has major implications for global warming in the pipeline. Clouds, which George will talk about in a minute, are the mechanism in climate models that permits a broad range of climate sensitivities. So next chart, oh, I know you have, but no, I actually go back to the one that you just had. So, wait a minute, if climate sensitivity is high, how can climate models with a smaller climate sensitivity, which is most models, obtain realistic global warming for the past century? The answer, the second of the two important climate forcings aerosols are an unmeasured free parameter and models with low climate sensitivity can compensate by understating the aerosol cooling. So can I have the next one? So aerosols are fine airborne particulates. They are a health hazard killing several million people per year. Aerosols also cool the climate by reflecting sunlight to space, their main effect being as condensation nuclei for cloud drops. They slightly increase cloud cover and make clouds a bit brighter. Humanity made a Faustian bargain by offsetting a substantial but uncertain fraction of greenhouse gas warming with aerosol cooling. Now, as we want to reduce all the chronic health effects of aerosols, our first Faustian payment is due. The payment is acceleration of global warming. Next chart, China reduced its aerosols in the past 15 years, and aerosols from ships decreased in 2015 and especially in 2020, as Leon will describe in a few minutes. So we expect the post 2010 global warming rate to increase at least 50%, which is the lower edge of the yellow area. If we are right, the 12 month running mean temperature will rise above the yellow region by next spring as the current El Nino peaks. The mean temperature for the rest of this decade will be at least 1.5 degrees Celsius warming and two degrees Celsius global warming will be reached within 20 years thereafter. The next chart, although aerosol climate, although aerosol climate forcing is unmeasure, there's a great inadvertent aerosol experiment now ongoing that helps to educate us. The International Maritime Organization imposed regulations on the sulfur content of ship fuels in 2015 and tightened the regulations in 2020 and 2020. This should have a detectable effect on clouds, decreasing cloud cover and cloud brightness and thus increasing the sunlight absorbed by Earth. Especially in the North Pacific and North Atlantic regions where shipping is the source of a large fraction of the sulfate aerosols. The next chart, the satellite data, which Norman will talk about suggests that absorbed solar radiation is increasing. It's highly variable because of natural variations of cloud patterns such as the Pacific Decade Lossillation. But since the strong regulations on ships went in effect in 2020, solar radiation absorbed by Earth has increased about 3 watts per meter squared in the North Pacific and North Atlantic. The next chart, on global average, the solar radiation absorbed by Earth has increased about one watt per meter squared. The next chart, this increase of absorbed solar radiation is the reason that Earth's energy imbalance has almost doubled since 2015. When I gave a TED talk more than a decade ago, Earth's energy imbalance was about six-tenths of a watt per square meter, which is equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day. That much energy being poured mostly into the ocean. That imbalance has now doubled. That's why global warming will accelerate. That's why global melting will accelerate. Now the next chart, let's look at the absorbed solar radiation again. If this is not noise, and I don't think it is noise, this one watt increase is a BFD, a big fucking deal. Let's compare it with greenhouse gas climate forcing. The next chart, the greenhouse gas climate forcing on the next chart has increased about 0.045 watts per meter squared per year, which is almost half a watt per decade. So the one watt increase of absorbed solar radiation is equivalent to more than a 20-year increase of greenhouse gases at their current high rate of increase. That's why I can say with confidence that global warming will now accelerate. Let's first look at greenhouse gases. Several years ago, IPCC defined a scenario RCP 2.6 aimed at keeping global warming less than two degrees Celsius. And Pushkar will comment on the modeling assumptions that lead to such drastically declining greenhouse gas emissions. But the real world overshot the plan. We could close the gap by extracting CO2 from the air, but the annual costs now has reached 3.5 to 7 trillion dollars based on estimates of David Keith on CO2 extraction. The cost of offsetting the decreased aerosol cooling would be 115 to 230 trillion dollars. Conclusion, the two degrees Celsius global warming limit is dead. Unless we take purposeful actions to alter Earth's energy imbalance. The next chart. The first thing that we must do is reduce emissions as rapidly as possible. But fossil fuels are providing most of the world's energy almost 80%. The next chart. Most of today's emissions and future emissions are from emerging economies, nations that want to raise their living standards. The next chart. The task to reduce. No, actually, let's go back one chart to the yellow and blue one. Yeah, as I said, most of today's emissions are from emerging economies so we can go to the next chart. The task is to reduce the carbon intensity of global energy to near zero. But we reduced it only from point eight to point seven in the past half century. It's not plausible for it to go to near zero by mid century. Sweden did well by decarbonizing its electricity in part by building nuclear power plants. Now my last chart on the fundamental required actions. None of these are occurring. Rising carbon fee is the fastest most effective way to affect all uses of fossil fuels. But the fossil fuel industry has prevented it. Instead of East West cooperation. Our politics and special interests have led to a focus on economic and military. Which is foolish because we're all in the same boat and will sink together if we don't work together. I don't think that anyone asks young people if that if this confrontational approach is the kind of world they wish to aim for the 1.5 degree limit is better than a doornail. And the two degree limit can be rescued only with the help of purposeful actions to affect Earth's energy balance. We will need to cool off Earth to save our coastlines coastal cities worldwide and low lands. While also addressing the other problems caused by global warming. Now it will take several years for socialization of what is needed for the public to understand. It will be aided by the increasing problems that they will see from global warming. That several years will provide the time that young people need to understand this matter. Specifically, the fact that I believe a political party that takes no money from special interest is probably an essential part of the solution. Young people should not underestimate their political thought. Thanks. Thank you very much, Jim. I could you just before we turn to George, just say a word about the 1.5 degree C target and the two degree you said that it's it's dead. Could you just explain quantitatively what you mean by that to help people understand where we are and where we are heading right now. In the next several months, we're going to go well above 1.5 C on a 12 month average. Now, as we go from the El Nino to the La Nina, it will drop back below the yellow region that I showed in my chart and may fall as low as 1.4 to 1.3. For the rest of this decade, the average is going to be at least 1.5. We know that because the planet is now out of balance by an incredible amount more than it ever has been, you know, it's double. So you've got a huge amount of incoming energy that that's what causes the temperature change. So 1.5 degrees is already is it's going is going to be occurring in the next several months and the average over the next several years will be at least that level. If there's more energy coming in and going out the planet is going to get warmer. And we're already at that level. And the so far as two degrees is concerned. You can see that the attempts to make a plan for how you could stay under two degrees. We're shooting way over that. And that was without considering the effect of this additional imbalance caused by aerosols being reduced. There's as push girl will show that the scenarios that you would need to stay under two degrees are just not their imaginary. And the aerosol just complicates it further. So we can do it we will have to do it. But it's going to require the combination of reducing emissions as rapidly as possible. And also if we're going to avoid Antarctic, you know there's a well I shouldn't go into details but if we're going to keep sea level close to where it is. We actually have to cool the planet. We can't allow it to continue to be out of balance the way it is now because it's melting the ice shelves and we're going to lose the West Antarctic ice sheet. If we don't cool the planet off. Thank you. Grimm and we'll come back to this in the Q and a no doubt and in the conclusions but let's turn to George cell, you just at NASA's Goddard Institute of space studies who's going to talk to us about the cloud modeling that is a part of the, the new insights showing this increased climate sensitivity so over to you George. Thank you Jeff. So, I'm going to talk a little about clouds and they're all in determining climate sensitivity. And then from the older generation of climate models the semi five models to the semi six models. One thing we noticed right away was that climate sensitivity increased, and there was a big effort to try and understand why these models are generally warmer than the semi five ones, and the chart on the left is showing you, I think our best estimate that why this is happening. What you see on the left is the semi five models are the blue models is this is the change in cloud feedback basically it's cloud warming versus cloud cooling so anything above zero is warming anything below zero is cooling. So, you see that the blue models are cooler than than the red models or yellowish models which are the same six models, mostly because of what is happening in the southern ocean because of what is happening south of 30 degrees south between 30 degrees south, where the new climate models the six models are warming the planet a lot more than the semi five models. So, the feedback in the southern ocean is the main reason that the semi six models have higher climate sensitivity than the semi five models. Well, now the question that we need to resolve is, because what I'm showing you here the line is the average of a number of models, some of them have higher sensitivity some of them have lower sensitivity. So, I'm showing you the average which takes into account all of them. The question is, which models are more reliable, which ones are the ones that we can believe more than the others. So, we're focusing on the southern ocean to try and understand how well the models are doing clouds in the southern ocean. And this is what the chart on the right is showing you. So, the chart on the right is showing you low cloud cover in the whole world basically going from 60 south to 60 north if you go from bottom to top for every month going from January to December. And the, the panel on the left is the climate models that have high climate sensitivity. The panel in the middle are climate models that have low climate sensitivity and the panel on the right is observations. So basically, what you want to do is compare the panel on the right with the two panels on the left and see which one you believe more. Well, just by looking first of all at the colors, which are showing you the cloud cover, you will see that the panel on the left resembles a lot more of the panel on the right than the middle one. One seems to have a lot less low clouds throughout the globe than the observations or the high climate sensitivity models. So the high climate sensitivity models are making low clouds a lot better than the low climate sensitivity models and any modeler would trust the model much more when it's more realistic. So basically, do they make better low clouds that high sensitivity models but they also make the seasonal variation better. For example, look at how clouds change with with the season on the right in the observations in the southern ocean which is the area that we want to focus most. You can see that the observation shows that clouds increase in the northern hemisphere summer basically June, July, August for May to August or September and they decrease in the twos between January and March and after September. So if we look at the models, the high sensitivity models, they do the same thing they increase their clouds during the summer season, the northern hemisphere summer. However, the low sensitivity models are doing the opposite they decrease their clouds, not only they don't have the right amount of clouds, but they also decrease them at the right season. So this is telling us that the high sensitivity models are doing a better job of producing those clouds that according to the left panel are really important in order to understand climate sensitivity. So this is why we believe that sensitivity is around even above 4.5 those high sensitivity models have sensitivity is about 4.5 degrees Celsius. Sensitivity is above 4.5 degrees are better are more reliable as far as climate feedbacks are concerned. And just one last point to make here is that you see here that I'm trying to understand this by using seasonal variability because with seasons things change a lot. We need a lot more detail in our cloud observations in order to take the last 40 years and understand the changes over this time period. However, the way we're going is we're reducing the, basically the funding spend and the missions, the satellite missions that are needed in order to try and understand this cloud feedback and cloud and narrow soil interactions. And this is something that's worrisome. We are at a very critical position at a very critical time. We need to make decisions fast about our future. And at the same time, we're reducing our capability to observe the planet, the way that we in the detail that we need in order to understand what is going on. And this is, to me, a very counterproductive, in order not to use a worse policy to follow at this critical time, reducing our investment in observing the air from space is exactly the wrong thing to do. George, thank you very much. Very important and also alarming on both the dimensions of what you're finding and what we're not measuring. Let me turn to Dr. Pushkar Karecha at the Columbia University Climate School. And I think Pushkar, you're going to talk about the comparison of the new paper and the IPCC climate sensitivity estimates. It's somewhat related, yes. I'm going to be talking about the comparison of the reason basically why I integrated assessment models and IPCC mitigation scenarios stretch plausibility. Okay, so just to make sure we're all on the same page, I wanted to briefly describe the general framework of integrated assessment models shown here as a flow chart. The output of which is used to drive global climate models and generate mitigation scenarios. These models overall are useful, of course, but they contain, in my view, many dubious assumptions. And the ones I'm going to focus on here are technology availability and implementation. And the bottom line, this has led to an over-reliance, in my view, on unproven mitigation methods, including large-scale BEX or bioenergy plus carbon capture and storage, and DAX, direct-air carbon capture and storage, and other negative emissions technologies or carbon dioxide removal methods. So in terms of just the core mitigation problem we face as a world, I think this figure from the IPCC report, the most recent one, AR6, summarizes things very nicely. It shows the cumulative emissions from existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure alone on the left. And on the right, the gray bar shows the remaining allowable carbon budgets in the one-and-a-half and two-degree mitigation scenarios. And so what we see from that is basically the cumulative emissions, if we just look at existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure, they already exceed essentially the entire range that's consistent with the one-and-a-half degree scenario. And even a good chunk of the remaining budget associated with the two-degree scenario. So the clear and immediate implication of this is that existing fossil fuel sources, fossil fuel infrastructure, must be either phased down or decommissioned outright. And the planned projects essentially have to be canceled. So in terms of the CO2 emissions that are projected by IAMs and used to generate mitigation scenarios to drive global climate models, this is another figure from the same IPCC report. They show very large increases in very uncertain negative emissions sources that I mentioned in both the land and energy sectors. Over the next few decades across most scenarios, especially on the stringent side, the one-and-a-half degree scenarios. So the basic problem with this approach is that it does not sufficiently address the conflicts with other environmental and social goals, namely sustainable development, food production, water use, and so on. So in summary, in terms of reality versus mitigation scenarios and IAMs, there's good news and bad news. On the bright side, clean energy sources are very rapidly and substantially increasing all around the world, especially in the countries we need them most, namely the top CO2 emitters. But the timescale of required growth of these sources in both the one-and-a-half and two-sea scenario sets seems unrealistic. For example, if you look at the increase just this past decade, excuse me, the increase that's required this decade in either the one-and-a-half or two-degree scenarios, it has to equal or exceed the increase over the entire last three decades. And Mino on the downside, unfortunately, fossil fuel emissions are, of course, still rising with no peak in sight, at least not any time soon. So the- I can't tell you anymore. We may have lost Pushkar's connection. Okay, I think we have. In the interest of time, because we are running a little bit late, could I turn to Leon Simons of the Club of Rome to talk about the changes of maritime emissions? And Pushkar, we're going to move quickly to Leon, if that's all right. Okay, great. Thanks a lot. To Leon Simons, who will speak about international maritime organization regulations and its implications for the aerosol emissions and those implications for the increase of increased rate of warming. So, Leon, to you, please. Thank you, Jeff. Hi. Yeah, as Pushkar mentioned, greenhouse gas emissions are not decreasing. But there's one thing that is decreasing, as Jim already referred to, and that's the sulfur emissions. These are decreasing much faster than anticipated because health and environmental regulations are very successful. And why is that important? Here, I copied here the most important forcing agents from the IPCC, and it shows the warming effect from greenhouse gases here, and then the cooling effect from sulfur dioxide emissions up to 2019. And on the right, you see the global sulfur dioxide emissions. And as you can see, most of these emissions are over the northern hemisphere. That means that the cooling effect of sulfur is mainly focused, and that's the best estimate of the IPCC. And our research shows that it's probably, and you can see there's a very big uncertainty, our research shows that the cooling effect is most likely stronger than the IPCC estimated. But it's not the whole story because the cooling effect is even stronger over the northern hemisphere, where seven of the eight billion people on this planet live than on the southern hemisphere. Because on the northern hemisphere is where all these sulfur particles were emitted. And as Jim already mentioned, these particles they reflect, the sulfur is inside the fuels when it's taken out of the ground. And when it's burned, the sulfur enters the atmosphere and it reflects sunlight. And it makes clouds brighter and longer lasting and bigger, and which also reflects more sunlight. And if you reduce these particles, this is the burning of these fuels, the emissions will decrease, and then the amount of sunlight that's reflected will also decrease, which makes more sunlight being absorbed by the earth, and then increased, that would increase the warming. Or more accurately, it will hide less of the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. And this one figure of the paper, here you can see, again, the North America is Asia, and you see the total sulfur emissions, that's both from natural sources and from human sources. And here on the right, we show the emissions which are from shipping. And then you can see that over half of the emissions, both natural from algae for example, and from volcanoes, more than half of these emissions of sulfur are over the North Pacific and over the North Atlantic are from shipping, and that's before shipping regulations came into effect. And here I showed it from the International Maritime Organization, the changes in how much sulfur is allowed to be in the fuels ships burn. These are 50,000 very large ships transporting goods all over the world, and in 2010 and 2015 you see that this is in the regions in the North Sea and around North America, these emissions were reduced. But globally, the biggest reduction happened in 2020, when the maximum amount of sulfur that was allowed to be in the fuel went from 3.5% to 0.5%, reducing the sulfur emissions over the oceans by 80%. Here you can see what that means from 1900 to 2020, this is the shipping sulfur dioxide emissions in thousands of tons. And then you can see here, they nosedived when these regulations came into effect on January 1, 2020. And here again, the map I've shown before, this is the satellite data from NASA, from the series mission, looking at how much sunlight comes in, and then at the top of the atmosphere, how much sunlight comes in, and then how much is reflected. And that means then you can calculate how much net radiation is absorbed, this is the 48th month running mean. You can see in this region, and in this red and this purple region, the North Pacific and the North Atlantic, as Jim already mentioned, there's a big increase of about 3 watts per square meter of radiation. So that means that a lot more sunlight and a lot more heat is being absorbed. And if you compare that to the Southern Hemisphere Ocean, there we don't see that. So we can compare these very large regions of about 30 million square kilometers and about 25 million square kilometers to this large region on the Southern Hemisphere. And then we see that, of course, there's some increase, because if the Earth warms, that decreases cloud cover, as George already showed. And then, so there is also the Southern Hemisphere of the oceans, there's some decrease in increase, or in the amount of sunlight being absorbed. But on the Northern Hemisphere, especially in recent years, it increased much more. And there's some variability, which is more related to El Nino and to the Pacific Decade Oscillation. Maybe Norman can talk about that a bit, because they found already in 2021 that the rate of global warming had doubled, both from ocean heat content data and from satellite data, from the same satellite data. But they also looked at this effect. But now we see, while we expected it to start decreasing, because of El Nino, sorry, and negative video, it started increasing instead. And what does it mean for the world as a whole? That means that more sunlight is rapid. There's a very rapid increase in how much sunlight is being absorbed. That's in yellow, and then in red, that's outgoing infrared or heat radiation. And the difference is the net imbalance, or the Earth's energy imbalance. So how much energy is accumulating in the Earth system? And as Jim already mentioned, that has more than doubled even. Especially in the recent, in the past three years, we see it is increasing more and more. Opposite of expectations, if you wouldn't include these aerosol changes. And then, so if you deduct the amount of absorbed solar radiation, if you deduct the outgoing heat radiation, you get the net effect. And that's what you see here, that there's a very high increase in how much net energy accumulates on Earth system, which we call the Earth's energy imbalance. And again, this is from satellite data, but it's supported by evidence from ocean heat content data and other evidence. Thank you. Jeff, you're on mute. Leon, thank you very much. Very clear and very striking. Let's turn quickly to Norman Loeb at NASA to talk about the satellite measurements and their current status. And then we'll turn to Q&A. There is so much material here, a number of people want to ask questions. So let's see if we can squeeze in as many as possible. Okay, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, I'm going to talk about the satellite measurements specifically series, which stands for clouds and the Earth's radiant energy system. So we've seen different versions of this. This is the series record, Global Mean All Sky Radiation. I'm showing what we measure. So we observe the reflected solar radiation. We have other instruments at NASA that measure the incoming solar. And so the incoming solar minus the reflected solar gives you the absorbed solar. And that's really what fuels climate system. In the blue, it's the emitted thermal infrared radiation. And that's essentially how Earth sheds heat. And as we heard, the difference between those two or some of these two give you the net radiation. What I'm showing here are anomalies, which are deviations from climatology. And the striking thing that we've observed with these measurements is these trends. We're seeing a very large trend, as we heard, in absorbed solar radiation, a weaker negative trend in terms of more outgoing radiation. And so the net is positive. So there's already a positive energy imbalance, as I'm showing you in the table below, where it was about half a watt during the first 10 years of series. And during the last 10 years, leading up to every 2023, it went to one watt. So it's pretty alarming. And it's very robust because we can compare it with in situ data from ocean heat storage. This is the only record in the world, the only dedicated record satellite record for Earth radiation in the world. We're at it. To put this into a different context, you could take the green line I showed in the previous slide and integrate that over the whole globe and then look at the how much energy has been accumulated into the Earth system. And this is essentially it. The monthly mean is in blue. There's a seasonal cycle and then the 12 month running average is in red. And to put that into context, the total energy that's been added to the climate system since we started taking series measurements is 60 times greater than the global primary energy consumption. So it's a lot of energy. Most of it, as Jim said, ends up as heat storage in the ocean. About 2% is used to warm the atmosphere, 5% to heat land, and the remainder is used to melt snow and ice. And so the implications of this are really huge for people living on Earth. So here's the flight schedules. We've been really fortunate to have been able to launch so many satellite instruments. So there are six flight models of series to launched on Terra satellite. It launched in 2029. All of these are five year normal missions and truly remarkable. Terra is still going 23 years later. And we anticipate that it'll go through 2026 when it'll run out of fuel. So it's really an engineering marvel. All of the instruments and satellite are doing great. Aqua. Similarly, two instruments there. It's just over 21 years and will also run until 2026. We have two other series instruments flight models, five and six that are flying on Noah satellites, Sumi MVP launched in 2011 and Noah 20 and 2017. And those are doing great and could go pretty far if they're allowed to, but there are programmatic constraints, budgetary constraints that make their end life here uncertain. And so we're hoping that these are allowed to continue and overlap with the next instrument that hasn't launched yet. Libra instrument that's going to launch at the end of 2027. It's really important to have these overlap because a gap in the record would really increase the uncertainty. And so after Libra after its five year nominal mission, we have nothing planned at this point. And so that means, first of all, Libra could be a single point failure. It could be the only satellite flying. And it'll be beyond its prime mission nine years from now. And so that is concerning. So at NASA Langley, we've been developing innovative small set technology that can continue this record beyond Libra at a much lower cost on a platform that is much more autonomous on a much smaller platform that's more nimble in terms of launching than has been previously possible with these bigger satellites. And so I hope we get the opportunity to fly these satellites to continue this very important record. Thank you. Chairman, thank you very much. Very, very important and very interesting. We will turn to Q&A. I'd like to call Seth the Bornstein of AP first and then Gloria Dickey of Reuters then Adam Vaughan of Times of London. So, Seth. Yes, thank you. In turn, I have two questions, mostly for Dr. Hansen. When you read, when I reached out to a whole bunch of other mainstream climate scientists, people like Z. Cosvath or Michael Mann, they said they called your work somewhat hyperbolic. They said it is plausible on the edge of plausible or at the high end of plausible, but not likely. And that might be fair to call some of those some of the kinder. And so in what is it, but they also, to be honest, say you have a rep, you know, your history is of being right when you're out on a limb. Why are you right this time, compared to other, you know, compared to the mainstream And then the second question goes into the 20, the 2.7, I mean, 0.27 degrees per decade since 2010. Well, that was started out as a strong El Nino year. It also ended as a strong La Nina year. Are you cherry picking a start date here? I know no data shows it's 0.27 since 2010. Is that why chose, why did you choose that date and how does Enso factor in to, you know, when you're looking at that change and that acceleration. Thank you. And thank you for doing this. Thank you, Seth. Okay, to start with how. How do we get these conclusions and are they fringe? No, you know, it's very, it's very simple. The sensitivity is based on now, very hard numbers. The, for the temperature change between the glacial and interglacial times, which for decades, we thought that the claim was that it was only three to four degrees. We now know that that's wrong. And the uncertainty is small compared to the change. Physics there is very straightforward. It's, it's the real world that's telling us what the equilibrium climate sensitivity is, and that's far better than models in which you can get any answer depending on what cloud feedbacks you put in. But as George showed, when you, when you do improve your cloud physics and make it look more like the real world, it also increases the climate sensitivity. So there's every reason to believe that this is this is not fringe. This is the correct physics and it's the real world and it takes it sometimes takes the community a while to catch on. Now, the other, there was another thing about the physics. What was the second part of that? About the increased warming to 0.27 and the dates that you picked and the evidence. That was the third part, but let me, let me, let me answer that third part. No, if you look at the temperature change since 1970, it's been basically was a straight line. It's linear from 1970 up to the past decade. And the point that we're starting at, if you saw the charts that Leon showed, and the change in the aerosols occurred from China and from the shipping beginning in about 2010. And the reason to have that is the hinge point, and it's not at an extreme at El Nino or El Nino. We take the mean of that curve so there's no, it's, it's, it is an objective way to do it. And the other part, and this may be what I was forgetting about the second part. The physics is very clear. The warming is due to the planetary energy imbalance. You got more energy coming in than going out. The planet warms up. We've now got a double, we've doubled the imbalance, and that's going to increase the warming rate. Now it's not simply based on the current imbalance. You have to integrate over time and you're getting some still getting some warming from additions to the imbalance that occurred 100 years ago. But as we show quantitatively in the paper you would still expect at least a 50% increase in the warming rate. And that's what we will soon find out because, you know, the next few years will show that indeed we do have an acceleration in the global warming rate. Thank you. It's based on simple good physics. Just look at the paper you'll see that. Jim, thank you very much. Just to say we're short of time. There are a number of questions that have been asked on the chat and we will share those questions with the authors afterwards. So some of you may get feedback by email. But in the meantime, let me ask Gloria Dickey of Reuters to be next. Hi, yes, thank you for doing this. I just wanted to ask to kind of put this into the context of, you know, the global climate diplomacy and upcoming talks at COP 28 if 1.5 is indeed dead so much of the rhetoric of course is keeping 1.5 alive. How do you kind of square that with what we're going to see in a few weeks I mean our, you know, world leaders kind of living in an unimaginary world at this point you know what should the aims be of these talks. How long do you expect it will take you know kind of policy and discussion to catch up to thinking that 1.5 is dead. Just kind of where do we go from here. Thank you. Yeah, I think that is. That is a shortcoming of our scientific community to not make clear to the political leaders what the situation is 1.5 is better than adorning and anybody who understands the physics knows that. When you look at the real real the real potential. If you look at the energy a story you will understand that you are not the rest of the world is not going to suddenly get off of fossil fuels. They're just too convenient they raise standards of living. I said a number of times one gallon of gasoline contains more than 400 hours of labor by a healthy adult. And and as I showed a graph on the on the carbon intensity of energy we've we've reduced it from point eight to point seven and 50 years that's not going to go to zero in a few decades. There are no plans to do that. And as pushers charts showed the assumptions that are made in these integrated assessment models that IPC is using are just inconsistent with the real world and what is happening. So we're also going to pass two degrees that's clear unless we take actions to affect the planet's energy balance. And all those models by the way do not include the decreasing aerosols and the large additional burden that that puts no one watt per meter squared is an enormous a forcing to try to overcome I I mentioned that you want to do it by extracting CO2 it costs you more than $100 trillion. It's not going to happen. So we have to be so young people need to understand what they are being handed by the older generation they can't allow this fake stories to to mislead them. They're going to actually have to affect the politics so that the special interests do not control and I'm especially the fossil fuel industry does not control the future. And in the United States, you can't solve the problem with two political parties that are both taking money from the special interest. I think that in my opinion, we're going to have to get a party that takes no money from special interest. And that's the only way we'll get policies that young people want and are needed to assure their future. If I could just add a word just to be absolutely clear. The fact that 1.5 degrees C is going to be exceeded must be interpreted properly to mean the emergency is much greater than these politicians either know or pretend. It's not that it's less or that there's less reason for action. There's much more reason for action at a much more urgent pace. And that's the real message of all of this. So it's not to exonerate lazy politicians who have done little till now. It's to tell them that their fakery is exposed because the rate of warming is higher. The emissions continue to rise. The drama that the planet is entering is much greater than they pretend. And so the action has to be commensurate with that reality. I just want to be absolutely clear that this isn't used to mock the idea of action. It's the opposite. It's to mock the inaction. It's to say that the emergency is much, much higher than people realize right now. And I just want to add that point. If we could turn to Adam Vaughn of Times of London. Hi, thanks for doing this. James, I just want to ask a couple of questions. Are the five warmest months in a row that we've seen this year a sign of the acceleration you're talking about in your paper? How worried should we be by those temperatures? And I just wanted to ask just to get your estimate on climate sensitivity in context a bit, if you could do that. So you're saying 4.8 degrees for a doubling of CO2, which is obviously a lot more than the IPCC. I don't think it's, and I'm obviously not a scientist, I don't think it's completely out of line with other literature, is it? So I just wondered if you could just put it in context a little bit with what we've known before. Thank you. I'm not sure I understood the question, but the 4.8 degrees is actually not outside of the IPCC range. They tend to give very large ranges, but they said their best estimate was 3 degrees Celsius. And it is clear from the real world response to the change in foresees between the glacial and interglacial periods. The three degrees is excluded. It's higher than that. It could be the uncertainty at 1.2 degrees would mean that 4 degrees Celsius is a possible sensitivity. But even that is much larger than the three degrees. And Jim, the first question was what should we make of the record breaking temperatures of the recent five months? Is this part of the evidence of what you're arguing? Yeah, absolutely it is. If you look at the, you know, part of the problem is separating signal from noise and you have a large natural variability of global temperature, especially associated with the tropical cycles, the southern oscillation. But you can minimize that effect of that variability by looking at the peaks of the large El Ninos. And the most recent large El Nino was only eight or nine years ago. And yet the warming since then, it's already clear, is going to be comparable to the warming that occurred between the prior Super El Ninos, which was more like 18 years. So the rate is almost double. And that's not surprising because the planet's energy imbalance is double. So heat is pouring into the planet at twice the rate. And that's that is a principal reason why we're getting these extremely large month after month global temperatures. Thank you. Could we turn to Grist? And if we have time, we'll finish up with Alejandro de la Garza at Time Magazine. We're running late, but let's try to get to two more questions in. Hi. If you could be quick, please. Yes, of course. I had a question about tipping points, which is, you know, what are the implications of those given that your research shows will reach 1.5 by the end of the decade. Thank you. The most important tipping point is the Antarctic ice sheet, and in particular, the Thwaites glacier, which whose grounding line has been moving inland at a rate of about a kilometer per year. And in another 20 years, it will reach a point where it. The the bed is so called retrograde bed so it gets deeper. The Antarctic ice sheet sits on bedrock below sea level, but it gets deeper as you go toward the center of the continent and it gets hits a canyon in about 20 years if we continue at 1 kilometer per year. When it hits that canyon, you're going to get very rapid disintegration of that glacier, which is basically the cork that's holding a lot of the West Antarctic ice in the bottle. We don't want to get there. And if we want to prevent to slow down and even stop the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, we'll have to cool off the planet. That's, and we need to do that because more than half of the large global cities in the world are on coastlines and they're a lot of lowlands. So that that's the tipping point, which I think dominates. But it so happens that there's so many other climate impacts that we're beginning to see and what would be much more if we go beyond two degrees. But there are many reasons to want to cool off the planet. If we want to keep a planet that looks more or less like the one that has existed the last 10,000 years, we actually have to cool off the planet back to a Holocene level temperature. And that's possible, but it's not easy. Maybe if you could just to say one more sentence on that, that is essentially Mr. Dilla Garza's question. What do you mean by cooling off the planet? I mean cooling it back. You know, it's comparable to what it was before the. But how is the question? Oh, how? Well, we were going to have to reduce emissions as rapidly as practical because otherwise any artificial ways to cool the planet are going to be overwhelmed. But we know when Pinot tube all went off, it put aerosols in the stratosphere, which we changed the planet's energy budget by three watts per meter square reduction. If you had that now, you know, that cool that actually cools off the planet. That's more than enough to put you from warming into cooling. So there are, there are ways to do it. And not just putting aerosols in the stratosphere there, you can have autonomous sailboats putting sea salt in the atmosphere and seeding clouds, which many people would consider more innocuous than putting aerosols in the stratosphere. But rather than describe those efforts as threatening geoengineering, we have to recognize we're geoengineering the planet right now. This is what we're doing with these huge greenhouse gas amounts in the atmosphere is forcing the planet at a rate 10 times greater than has ever occurred in the Earth's history as far as we know. We have to minimize that human made geoengineering and on a temporary timescale that will probably require reflecting sunlight, just because of how difficult it is to get the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Oh, we're not going to do such a thing this year or next year. People have to understand the situation and they have to see that the problem is getting worse and worse. And, and we have to understand the implications better. We're doing the opposite. I think that's, that's important to make clear that we're now doing the opposite of, of reflecting more sunlight, we are reflecting less sunlight. That's why the warming rate is accelerating because we're actually decreasing human made aerosols. But when, when you, instead of, we have to compare the current geoengineering with the strong warming that that causes and all the problems that's going to cause at low latitudes and increase storms and increased floods and things with the situation where we bring the temperature back down and it may have regional effects. But overall, the global climate effects are are likely are surely much less than if we continue on this path and get several degrees of global warming. But yeah, no, I think we're going to have to close because we're 10 minutes after the hour. I want to thank everybody for participating. Please everybody down. Make sure that you have the paper. It is an extraordinarily important paper. And we have a number of questions in chat, which we will convey to the authors and I'm sure that the authors will also be ready to follow up with you directly by by email. And if we could put a link, Allison, in the chat for people to follow up directly with you so that we can help to intermediate, intermediate the questions. Let me thank everybody again. And we're in a in a grim situation. And I think that's clear. It's even grimmer that the politicians have failed their responsibility to the world now for quite a long time. I for one am horrified to put them in a position of further engineering a disaster when they can't even do the straightforward things. But that's a that's a time for another, another talk and another another discussion. We have a massive political failure, our politicians like wars, they don't want to save the planet in the right way. So let's bring it to an end now and thanks, Jim. Thank you, George Pushkar, Leon and Norman for a extremely important contribution to the scientific and to the public understanding and thanks to the colleagues at the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network for changing this conversation with the world leading climate scientists and best wishes to everybody today. And bye bye. Thank you Jeff very much. Thank you.