Podcast appearances and mentions of Alan Robock

 American climatologist Alan Robock on what nuclear winter would be like - and why geoengineering our way out of climate change could accidentally lead us there  

Bob Dylan, the world renowned musical artist whose career now spans seven decades, has kept weather core to his writing. How so? Out of approximately 465 total Dylan songs, the word 'sun' is found in 63 different ones, 'wind' in 55, 'rain' in 40, and 'sky' in 36. 'Cloud', 'storm', 'summer', 'snow', and just 'weather' have been used in dozens more. Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University wrote all about this in his 2004 journal article Tonight as I stand in the Rain: Bob Dylan and Weather Imagery.  Robock, who just attended his 49th Bob Dylan show in November 2023, joins the podcast crew to take an inside look into Dylan's weather lyrics. Robock explores Dylan's weather topics, like whether you need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows (Subterranean Homesick Blues). Robock also hypothesizes why Dylan sings about the weather so much and more.  We want to hear from you! Have a question for the meteorologists? Call 609-272-7099 and leave a message. You might hear your question and get an answer on a future episode! You can also email questions or comments to podcasts@lee.net. About the Across the Sky podcast The weekly weather podcast is hosted on a rotation by the Lee Weather team: Matt Holiner of Lee Enterprises' Midwest group in Chicago, Kirsten Lang of the Tulsa World in Oklahoma, Joe Martucci of the Press of Atlantic City, N.J., and Sean Sublette of the Richmond Times-Dispatch in Virginia.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Yes, the planet is getting warmer. But what's happening in the United States specifically and what will the impacts be? The newly released Fifth National Climate Assessment is the most comprehensive report yet on how climate change is impacting the country. Dr. Jeremy Hoffman, the lead author of the Southeast chapter, joins the podcast this week to give an overview of the assessment. What is different about this report from previous ones? How do current and future impacts vary across different regions, industries, and social classes? Dr. Hoffman also discusses why there is reason for optimism as we move forward with tackling climate change. We want to hear from you! Have a question for the meteorologists? Call 609-272-7099 and leave a message. You might hear your question and get an answer on a future episode! You can also email questions or comments to podcasts@lee.net. About the Across the Sky podcast The weekly weather podcast is hosted on a rotation by the Lee Weather team: Matt Holiner of Lee Enterprises' Midwest group in Chicago, Kirsten Lang of the Tulsa World in Oklahoma, Joe Martucci of the Press of Atlantic City, N.J., and Sean Sublette of the Richmond Times-Dispatch in Virginia. Episode transcript Note: The following transcript was created by Headliner and may contain misspellings and other inaccuracies as it was generated automatically: Southeast Braces for Rising Seas Sean Sublet welcomes climate scientist Jeremy Hoffman to Lee Enterprises Weather podcast Sean Sublette: Hello once again, everybody. I'm, meteorologist Sean Sublette. And welcome to Across the Sky, our national Lee Enterprises Weather podcast. Lee Enterprises has print and digital news operations in more than 70 locations across the country, including in my home base in Richmond, Virginia. I'm joined by meteorologist colleagues Matt Holiner in Chicago, Joe Martucci at the New Jersey Shore, Kirsten Lang this week is on assignment. Our guest this week is climate scientist Jeremy Hoffman. Jeremy got his PhD in geology with a focus in Paleo climatology at Oregon State University. And importantly, he is the lead author of the new Southeast chapter of the Fifth National Climate Assessment, which just came out this week. After several years here in Richmond at the Science Museum of Virginia, he is now working with Groundwork USA, a network of local organizations devoted to transforming the natural and built environment of low resource communities across the country. So we have got a lot to get to, with Jeremy in this episode. Guys, one of the things that I think was really good for us to point out was that we're hit with so many reports, right? This report comes out. This report comes out. We see this headline, that headline. This one is different. This one really focuses on specific sectors and impacts to all the regions of the United States. And Matt, you and I were talking, so many people were involved to get some good, what we call consensus opinions. Right? Matt Holiner: Yeah. This reminds me very much, if you haven't listened to our episode with Neil deGrasse Tyson, a great listen, but we talk about this with him, or he brought it up, how you want scientific consensus, you don't want the one person who has this one, probably that's not how science works. You want something that's been worked on and been looked at by a lot of people. And a lot of people worked on this report, and some of the most respected scientists in the country worked on this report. So this wasn't a report done by one person. And it's not just a few page report. It's very detailed, lots of people working on it to reach a consensus on what's happening, a scientific consensus. This isn't just an opinion, this is based on fact, and a lot of hours and a lot of people will put effort into it. Joe Martucci: Yeah, and you could check that out at NCA 2023. Globalchange. Gov. That's NcaTwenty. Globalchange. Gov. Yes. Usually when a number of people are saying the same thing, that is usually meaning that there is power behind this. What is in the report is factually correct, at least to the best of their abilities here. And this all goes into what I say a lot of times when it comes to climate change, let's just get the elephant out of the room. It is a big topic, that does get heated here. But the way to think about this is there are facts and forecasts about our climate changing world, and then there's what to do or not to do about it. And that's where your beliefs come in. There is a difference between what our beliefs are and then what is actually happening. So, as we learn here in the podcast, this is talking about the facts and the forecast part of it. What is actually the thoughts of the researchers in terms of what to do or not to do about it is not in this. That's for now, Congress and our elected, officials to decide on. And he talks about that in the podcast, so I'm looking forward to it. Sean Sublette: Yeah, he gets into a lot of that. They kind of outline some policy ideas, but didn't say we need to X, Y or Z. So without further ado, let's get right to Jeremy Hoffman, who's the lead chapter offer of the Southeast chapter of the National Climate Assessment. The fifth National Climate Assessment has been several years in the making Sean Sublette: Jeremy, thanks for joining us. This has been a labor of love, I'm sure. the fifth national climate assessment is literally years in the making. Talk a little bit about the genesis of the NCA national climate assessment. This isn't just another report that's out there, right? I mean, this is a congressional act, right? Hundreds of scientists are working on this. Jeremy Hoffman: Yeah. So, first of all, thanks so much, Sean, and your team, for inviting me to be a part of the discussion today. You're absolutely right. I mean, this has been a, ah, report that's several years in the making. First and foremost, the national climate Assessment itself is a congressionally mandated, production of the US government, of the US GCRP, or the US, Global Change Research program and the NCA Five, really began, back in the end of 2019 when the Federal Steering Committee that would be kind of running the show and pushing the report forward was established. And then by the middle part of 2020 or so, that's when the, lead authors were selected based on a public nomination process. so I was informed of my selection as the, chapter lead for the Southeast chapter, at that time, as well as, getting to know my coordinating lead author, Steve McDulty, who's the director of the Southeast, Region Forest Service. Steve, amazing career, has worked on basically every climate assessment, since they began, so he had been working on climate assessments since before I was born. So it was really great to have somebody with such experience helping me, get to know the climate assessment process. And so, by 2021, by the end of 2020, we had our chapter author team selected and established, and so then basically for the last two years, since that time, we've been doing, different drafts of the content of the fifth national climate Assessment. This has included an outline phase or the zero order draft. In early 2021, we got some, public feedback at that time, which was really great. We had, public engagement workshops that had visitors from all over the different, regions. We had, stakeholder, engagements as part of that process. And so we emerged with a really, kind, of bottom up outline of what the Southeast, the stakeholders and public and residents of the Southeast were really interested in and concerned about. SO Then there was a multiple iterative process, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th drafts, which, I believe the fourth order draft, went through, or the third order draft went through the National Academy's peer review process, as well as another public review, the Southeast chapter. We had, almost 100 public comments about our chapter draft, reflecting on the content and kind of pieces that might have been missing, as well as National Academy's review, which was three pages of a nearly line by Line review. And so, yes, this report is, the integrated effort of over 700 people, academics, professionals, climate, and resilience communicators. I mean, it is. The sheer number of people involved in the production of this from the NCA team side of things is immense. And then you think about the thousands and thousands of residents of this country that provided public review to the draft. This is not some flash in the pan kind of report. The state of climate impact and risk, science for the United States, that will be the kind of science of record that people can come back to again and again as they confront the risks of climate change in their communities, for at least the next five years, until the NCA six comes out. So, yes, it was a massive undertaking. It was such an incredible experience professionally, and I'm just so thrilled about the way that it's been rolled out to such public fanfare, around the country. Sean Sublette: Wonderful. Before I let the other guys jump in, I want to start at the very top. I mean, from what I've been able to tell, because I haven't gone through all of it yet. It's massive. It's kind of a reinforcement of things that we largely knew if we're paying attention. Right. but are there a couple of things that have come out in this version, NCA Five, that really stand out as bigger changes or more emphatic compared to NCA Four, whether it's in the Southeast or any part of the United States? Is there anything that really jumped out at you as a scientist? Jeremy Hoffman: Well, first of all, I think virtually across all of the regional chapters and even the sector specific chapters, almost without exception, virtually every way that we understand that climate change is happening has just gotten stronger, since NCA Four. Whether that be patterns, and trends in annual temperatures or our warm nights, indicators of heavy precipitation, indicators of rising sea levels. All of those things that we use as our indicators of climate change is happening now in the United States, virtually without exception, have all gotten more robust. So, as far as the framing around kind of content that's already been covered for the multiple other NCAs, this report very much focuses on, the fact that quite literally, how much more all of these things continue to intensify are entirely related to the choices that we make today. The human element about the uncertainty of what happens in the future, is really, particularly centered across all of the different chapters. So we're talking about, very much that what happens now has a direct correlation to what happens in the future. And depending on the level of global warming that we, experience and allow to happen, dictates the future intensity of the, climate indicators that we have already, seen change. Now, some of the particular things that I think, ah, are particularly noteworthy in the Southeast. I think the most alarming result is related to sea, level change. Sea level is going up, globally, because land based ice in the Polar Regions is melting and adding that water that was frozen into big, giant ice sheets that water is melting and going into the ocean. That raises, global sea levels. Also, most of the energy being trapped by the intensified greenhouse gas effect is being absorbed by the oceans. So the oceans are warming up. This is a really fascinating bit about water, is that as it warms up, it expands. You, can do this experiment at home, boiling water on your stove at home. You see that as it warms up, it's actually starting to take up a greater volume, over time. So we have those two things going on globally. But then when you look at the localized things, that can then further amplify global sea level rise that's happening throughout the Southeast, and really creating, a fairly, urgent need to confront these rising sea levels because we actually have a faster relative sea level rise throughout the Southeast. That drives our future projections to be much higher than the global average expectation. So things like excessive groundwater, know, in coastal, you know, Norfolk, Virginia has the highest rate of sealable rise on the entire east coast of North America, due to localized groundwater extraction, as well as things like the relaxation of the Earth's crust following the end of the last Ice Age. So this connects to things happening tens of thousands of years ago. But also there are localized oceanographic, changes that are ongoing that further amplify sea, level trends that we have in the Southeast. Now, what does this mean long term? By 2050, which pretty much a lot of the future climate projections that are seen in the report focus on more near term changes. So 2050 or so, sea level rise of 2ft is expected at a kind of intermediate to high range scenario, which seems to match the trends that we have detected already. So when we think about the amount of people that are moving under the coastline, the amount of things that we're building along the coast, the threats of a changing sea level, really become apparent through intensified amount of flooding related to hurricanes, to storm surges, even just sunny day or nuisance flooding going up, taking up more time, disrupting people's day to day lives on the coast. And we know that these flooding conditions disproportionately affect those without the resources in order to prepare for them. And that's what I would say is another aspect of this report that is centered throughout, the report in sectors and regional, chapters is that there is a disproportionate impact of climate change on poorer communities and communities of color that experience the challenges of climate change, first and worst, whether that's through their health impacts or to their livelihoods. This is a real theme across the report that you will see, ah, very much, highlighted across both sectors and regions. So I'd say, there are a few other things we can talk about for sure, but when it comes to the Southeast sea level rise and throughout the whole country and throughout the report, this focus on disproportionate impact, is really something that is a big change from NCA four with. Joe Martucci: Everything you said, right? Who is actually taking this information, making actions upon it? I know you said it's congressionally mandated. I don't know if you said this during the broadcast or just before, while we were off air. But who's taking this information? And what are the actionable steps that have been done based on previous climate assessments? Like, is this something that is actually being put to use in the United States? Jeremy Hoffman: So I find that, if you look up the citations for, the NCA, four chapters, they appear in all manner of different capacities, whether it's just public awareness. So, this kind of coverage, news coverage, making its way into the public realm, though, refining and defining new questions related to climate change impacts. So it further drives the research that is, working to illuminate more detailed, information, around climate change. But yes, we do see this making its way into decision making. And the biggest point about the national climate assessment is for it to be, policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive. So what's really great about these national climate assessments is that it is meant to just provide the information that can then shape those decision makers, plans for the future. I've seen it, make its way into, coastal resilience plans. I've seen the information and citations to previous reports, make its way into nonprofit community group kinds of presentations, whether it's, advocating for things like improved transit, or more shade in their neighborhoods. These sorts of documents, again, really find their way into a variety of different conversations, that I think just work to, establish a normalized set of data that we can use in those sorts of, discussions. And I think, it's been really amazing, the variety of different ways, that these reports have been, utilized. And I think that NCA Five, because of its real focus on finding ways to communicate with groups that maybe weren't aware that the national climate assessment exists. I am really excited to see it used, for other, endeavors, maybe more aligned with the humanities or social sciences, and understanding more about things like mental health and well-being where a hazard showed up, in the past. So, there's a variety of different things, from concrete climate related policy to, just improving the way that individuals and communities can talk about climate change in their own backyards. Climate change is causing drought and flooding in the United States Matt Holiner: And, Jeremy, I think one of the things that's, confusing for folks is when we're talking about climate change, we're talking about how drought is becoming more intense and occurring more often, and flooding is becoming more intense and occurring more often. And so then people are like, well, which one is going to win? Is drought going to win? Or is flooding going to win? And I think it's going to somewhat depend on where you are in the world about what is more likely. But when you're just looking at the United States, is there anything we could say by region about who is likely to suffer more from drought and who is likely to suffer more from flooding? Jeremy Hoffman: So the kind of traditional wisdom in the climate size community is that you get this pattern of the dry gets drier and the wet gets wetter. So, by. And the country itself tends to be divided about halfway between what's dry to the west and what's wet to the east. And we've seen that playing out, in the, precipitation related indicators of climate change anyway, the Southeast and the Northeast experiencing the more, robust changes to the intensity and duration and frequency of extreme precipitation. Changes to the annual amount of precipitation tends to be in those places that were already kind of wetter climates to begin with. And so when we look into the future, the more, clear patterns related to, extreme precipitation tend to fall along those same lines, where the Southeast and the Northeast continue to see this kind of increased, the duration and frequency of extreme precipitation events, overall. Now, on the flip side of that, we do see that in the Southwest, the projections of Dryness, become really, pretty substantial. The paleo, climate evidence suggests that we're already in an unprecedented amount of dryness and drought in that region and into the future. As the atmosphere becomes more thirsty, the soil is going to become more thirsty, driving these sorts of, additionally intense, trends, to, more drier and drought prone conditions. Now, when you start to zoom in on any one particular place, now we know how complicated rainfall is, we know how complicated drought is. But by and large, we can kind of think of this as being the dry parts of the country are going to continue to feel that dryness, and for every increased additional 10th of a degree from global warming, that gets more intense. And those places that see, extreme precipitation in the present and experience more annual precipitation in the present, that will continue to get, more acute, as, global warming continues as well. Sean Sublette: Jeremy, this is all so deep. We want to do get into a few more specifics. We will do that after we take a quick break. Every increment of global warming directly affects local impacts Sean Sublette: You're listening to the across the sky podcast, and we're back with climate scientist Jeremy Hoffman on the across the Sky podcast. He's the lead chapter author of the Southeast chapter of, the Fifth National Climate Assessment. So many times, Jeremy, we hear about tipping points and I worry that people are going to wake know they expect something a year from now and the country looks like that movie the day after tomorrow. It's really not that way. Can you talk through how this kind of works? In, other words, how does every 10th of a degree matter kind of walk through that a little bit? Jeremy Hoffman: Regarding impacts, first and foremost is like, while there's increasing amount of knowledge and a lot of open questions about these tipping points, it's much more, about what the long term, trajectory of our emissions pathways are and how that directly relates to the intensity of global warming. Because the intensity, the total amount of global warming that we experience then translates into how much more frequent does that, totally, unpredictable heat wave become, how much more rain is falling in that really intense rainfall event. And that's because the physical constraints of the atmosphere in many ways, and then how that cascades down into the really important impacts on people like, the design incentives that we use for stormwater or the, exposure of an outdoor worker to the extreme heat wave. So let me try and break that down a little bit. And the best example of this is the clausiest cleperon relation, the physical constraint of the atmosphere that, for every nominal increase in the temperature, there is about a seven. For every degree Celsius of warming in the atmosphere, that generally relates to about a 7% increase in the humidity content. So if you break that down into even smaller chunks, you can see how over every single increment of warming then is related to a corresponding and in Some cases accelerating amount of, additional water vapor that's in the air that then can be squeezed out like a bigger sponge over the same area that it affected before. And so what that means is for every degree of, warming, we have a corresponding increase of vapor. That means potentially a corresponding increase in rainfall, which we then have to deal with in our infrastructure, which was in many ways designed decades ago for a climate that no longer exists and will continually get further and further away as global warming continues. So we think about more rainfall affecting the storm sewers that were built in some places centuries ago. They, can't keep up with that rainfall. So that means a direct relationship between increments of warming to unprepared infrastructure and impact on humans in their day to day lives. So when we talk about this kind of like increments of global warming and how every increment matters, that's what we're talking about. We're talking about how the incremental warming relates to then the incremental, impact damage, suffering, and other outcomes that relate to human, experience of living in this country and definitely around the world. So, while again, there is an increase of knowledge and interest in these tipping points, what we have to recognize is those incremental increases in their direct relationship to the cost of our food, the amount of, infrastructure that we have to update, and the impact on our health systems when a more intense and frequent heat wave, happens. So, yeah, I appreciate that question, because I think it really is. People have to understand that link between a 10th of a degree and the hundreds of dollars that that might mean for their bottom line. Matt Holiner: And, Jeremy, as we work through this part, I kind of want to come in and focus on agriculture, because, boy, some of the people that are most vocal, about the impacts that they're seeing from climate change already are the farmers, whether they're dealing with drought or flooding, either one, they don't want to see. And also the changing of the frost and freeze times. And when should they plant their crops and when should they harvest their crops? Are there any developments in this, assessment as far as agriculture goes and the outlook across the country? Jeremy Hoffman: Well, absolutely. There is both an agriculture specific chapter, which I encourage people to go and read. Joe Martucci: Ah. Jeremy Hoffman: NCA 2023, Globalchange.gov. and there is also, agriculture finds its way into just about every regional chapter. For example, in the Southeast, we talk a lot about the unpredictability of rainfall. That tends to be the case around the country, where we have these rapidly changing conditions from very dry to very wet, or from very wet to very dry. And so what they do is to establish not only what the historical change has been, but what does that mean by the end of this century, 2070 to 2100, which I'll remind you, children born today will be alive in this time period that we tend to think about as very removed from direct human experience. My niece will be living in the Midwest as this occurs in the future. Anyway, these precipitation extreme changes become more acute the more global warming occurs. So, again, it's like, as we allow these larger increments and additional increments of global change to, occur, this directly relates to then, the unpredictability of these, precipitation events. Now, one of my favorite kinds of stories, from the Midwest and farmers, is that the majority of America's pumpkins come from the Midwest. I grew up in Illinois, in. So, you know, the pumpkin harvest in Southern Illinois, south central Illinois, is something that I got to see with my own eyes, and how, the direct relationship between precipitation extremes and the harvest of pumpkins threatens then the experience of having pumpkin pie, for Thanksgiving. So we think about, the relationship between, the importance of, having, reliable, and place based understanding of how these things will relate to, agricultural communities. Really underscores, the importance of the NCAA Five. Now for another example is, and you mentioned these changing freeze dates. You can think about the first time that a freeze occurs, which is kind of what we're waiting for, at this time of year, when will it dip below 32 or 28, for the first time, and then the last frost of the season occurring sometime between March and May, depending on where you live. And this really has a huge effect, especially in the Southeast, on fruits. So, everybody remembers the Georgia peach, and so peaches need a particular amount of frost, and cold days, in order to fruit successfully and flower successfully the following spring. And if the, freeze dates, this last freeze date tends to be moving earlier into the spring on average, that has a direct relationship then to the robustness of those flowers that then turn into the peaches should a weather event like a late season frost occur. So the, long term change of this last freeze date superimposed on still the weather events like late season frosts still occurring, put these really delicate and temperature, sensitive crops, at increasing risk. And that relates to, the agricultural community's economies. Place based and specific kinds of crop based economies are really feeling this uncertainty in both rainfall and, temperature trends overall. And when I think about, how that relates to a variety of our crops that, produce foods that I love to eat, including pumpkin pie, including peaches, it really becomes clear that climate change impacts on the US are really climate, change impacts at the grocery store. Joe Martucci: Yeah, you're making me think of, with the freeze dates changing and the frost dates changing. I've done some stories, here in New Jersey about how farmers are a little, definitely more uneasy going into the early spring, because while on average we're getting warmer, especially with those nights, it still only takes just one late freeze to really knock things out. They might be growing earlier, but then they get knocked out because of a freeze that happens in early May, let's just say. Also, I just want to throw this out. Know, I've done a podcast before, with Gary Pavlis. He's a wine expert here in New Jersey and talking about how the winery industry has actually flourished in New Jersey. Because you're able to grow those grapes further north in the state where it was one time, just in Cape May in New Jersey. Now it's gone further to the north. So it's just interesting how you, bringing in all the agricultural stuff. We'll get this podcast home here as a 365 view, 365 degree view of this. The National Climate Assessment is completely free and open to the public Joe Martucci: What are you most proud of the work that you and your team has done? And what do you hope that the American public can get out of this as we go forward into the next couple of years ahead? Jeremy Hoffman: Well, I think some of the most important information in the NCA Five is not related to the scientific observations of a changing climate. It's actually the focus on what an opportunity we have to completely and totally transform our energy system, which has immediate health related benefits for everyone in the country, but particularly those communities that are disproportionately exposed to things like air pollution. there's also the huge offset of future costs to things like our energy grid or our transportation infrastructure if we invest in it now, which means jobs, it means vitality for our local communities, it means new industries like you just mentioned, the wine industry moving further north. I mean, the transformation that our economy could harness through preparation and mitigation of future climate change, is just huge. And so how that relates to a more just and equitable, future for our country is something that finds its way throughout, the chapters, and the report writ large. And I think the most hopeful bit, to me is that everything that we've just talked about, as far as what the future means, is in our hands. Everything that's in this report about the future, everything is related to how we decide to move forward. Do we drastically and dramatically reduce the amount of heat trapping gases going into the atmosphere, driving global climate change, or do we delay, and wait and see, or not transform as quickly as we could, not realize all those benefits, not realize all that economic growth, all that, transformation of how, our country works, it's entirely in our hands. And I think I actually walk away from this report being proud of how hopeful it can be interpreted to be, and just what an opportunity we have, in order to adapt, to mitigate and build resilience, equitably for the changes in the future. now, I would say that also one of the proud moments, is just the breadth of content that we've been able to produce, from the equity focused, kind of outcomes to indigenous knowledge being, incorporated throughout, our chapter, and a focus towards the near term impacts of climate change. I'm really just proud of it all and hopeful, for what's possible in the future. Sean Sublette: Jeremy, this is so amazing. I appreciate your time, I appreciate your work. Let, people know where they can find the national climate assessment and that it's not some big document on a shelf somewhere. And where can people find out more about what you were doing right now, especially with Groundwork USA. Jeremy Hoffman: Yeah. So thanks, Sean. First and foremost, the national climate assessment is completely free, totally open, and ready for you to go read it. It's at NCA 200:23 Globalchange. Gov. And included on that, is a really interesting, interactive, data Atlas that you can go in and explore in a web based map platform what the future holds for your community at the county level. So go and look at the future precipitation, go and look at the future hot days. And involve yourself in this report, because if it is your report, it is our, scientific knowledge. Explore it. Now. There's also a series of webinars that will be coming up over the next few months and throughout 2024. So you can go to just globalchange.gov and look at the events page for NCA five related webinars. And lastly, my organization, the organization that I work with, Groundwork USA, Groundworkusa.org. We're an affiliated network of 21 place based environmental justice nonprofits that work to transform underutilized contaminated land in cities across the United States into green community assets that prepare our communities for the changes in climate that they're already experiencing while looking at the past and the history of those communities, to empower them to advance more equitable investments in climate resilience. So check us out. Get involved in your local community organization. And thanks again for the invitation. It's been a pleasure, Jeremy. Sean Sublette: It's been great having you again. Jeremy Hoffman is lead author of the Fifth National Climate Assessment Sean Sublette: Jeremy Hoffman, our guest on the across the Sky podcast. Lead chapter or chapter Lead, Excuse me, of the Southeast chapter, of the Fifth National Climate Assessment. Stay with us. We'll be back with more on the across the Sky podcast. Guys, that is a lot to digest for sure, but I've known Jeremy for a while and he is as thorough as anybody as I have ever met on this topic. One of the things that I really like, the way he kind of lays this out, is that, the decisions we make now will impact those for generations to come, including those of us with kids and hopefully one day grandkids. So there's a lot of opportunity here there's a lot of hemming and hawing about this or that, but there is opportunity. You know, I've talked to Catherine Hayhoe, who is also a climate scientist, and it's important to, as bad as some of this information can be to take in, we already have room for some optimism. Coal is already on the decline, especially domestically. So there's a lot of room for optimism going forward and a lot of opportunity to make things better in the years to come. Matt Holiner: Yeah, I did like how he used the word that he's hopeful for this because it's easy, and I've mentioned this multiple times when we've discussed climate change, it's easy to just focus on the negative and how bad things are and how we're just a mess and we're not getting anything accomplished. But this, assessment, this report is an accomplishment. We're coming out every five years. In the last five years, we've seen already what's happening because of climate change, the increasing number of billion dollar weather disasters. So we're already getting a clearer picture of what impact climate change is having. We're seeing it already, so it becomes easier to get a clearer picture of how things are going to progress in the future. We're getting a better understanding, starting to notices some differences, even region by region, in the US. So we're getting a better and better understanding of the science and what the impacts will be and the climate models are improving. And so we have a clear picture of what's going to happen and the impacts that are going to happen. And so because of that, we're getting, I think, more motivation. When you have more details and you have more information on this subject, more people can act on it. And that's still the missing part. We're making progress. Our amount of carbon dioxide emissions is dropping in the US. It just needs to drop faster if we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. And we're starting to get a clearer picture of what those worst impacts are. And I think this assessment, with so many people working on it, is a good resource for people who are still unsure exactly how is this going to play out. Just go to this report, it'll answer your questions and give you some ideas of what we really need to do to take action. That's the thing. Like take this report seriously and let's start making more progress. We're making progress, but let's make more progress. And this is a good starting point. Joe Martucci: And you know what, too, when it comes to a lot of the projections with climate change the next couple of decades are already baked in, everything between now and about 2050 or so. It's pretty much going to happen, here. So as he said during the podcast, our grandkids, our kids, I hope I'm alive in 2100. We're going to see. I would be 109 by then. I got a shot. But it's really that 2050 to 2100 time frame where these projections, are in a position where they can be altered depending on what kind of action or inaction we take, as a society. Sean Sublette: Yeah, so a lot of deep stuff to get into this week. But having said that, we should dial it back a little bit. Right, Joe? Let's do some stuff that's fun in the next couple of podcasts. Let's get on that. Talk to me, buddy. You got a palace Jersey that we need to talk to. Joe Martucci: Totally. Well, we're going to talk to somebody who's not far away from me in New Jersey. He is in Connecticut. We're talking with Joe Moravsky. Now, if that name sounds familiar to you, that's because he's on American Ninja Warrior. He's been on American Ninja Warrior for a long time on the hit NBC show. But he is also a meteorologist. That is why they call him the Weatherman. It's not just because they said, oh, that's a cool nickname. It's because he actually is a meteorologist. So we're having him on talk about, his love for weather and his time on the show here. That's going to be coming up on the 27 November here. And then on December the fourth, we're going to have one of my old Rutgers professors. So we have a lot of, we'll say mid Atlantic flair. The next couple of weeks. We have Dr. Alan Robock. He is professor, at Rutgers University, has produced a lot about climate, by the way, I should add. But he's going to talk to us about Bob Dylan in the weather because believe it or not, you can do a PhD thesis on Bob Dylan in the weather. And he did just that. So we're going to have, him to talk about that. Then as we get closer, to the end of the New Year, we have an episode, for you on December 18, ten things to know about winter. If you recall, our ten things to know about fall got a little contentious. We'll see what happens for the winter one. And then we're going to have our annual year in review that will come out sometime between Christmas and New Year's here. That's what we have going on, on the across the Sky podcast. If you want to chime in, you certainly can. We've got a couple of emails. We even got one phone call. But you can email us at podcast@lee.net that's podcast@lee.net and then in terms of giving us a call, if you really want to talk with us here, you can call us at 609-272-7099 yes, we. Sean Sublette: Used to call those voicemails back in the day, didn't we? Joe Martucci: yes, we did. Yes, voicemails. And also, when the hashtag was the pound sign. Sean Sublette: Oh, yes. Hashtag was the pound sign. The good old days. All right. With that, we will wrap it up for this week. Thank you so much, for joining us on the across the Sky Podcast. Have a great Thanksgiving. If you're listening to this before. Yeah, absolutely. So for Matt Holiner in Chicago, Joe Martucci at the Jersey Shore, Kirsten Lang on assignment this week. I'm, meteorologist Sean Sublette in Richmond. Thanks again for joining us, and we will talk with you next time.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Making science easy to understand and relatable has always been a challenge, but in the world of social media and misinformation, it's become even more difficult. Few people know this better than popular astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. In a break from our usual focus on weather, Tyson joins the podcast this week to discuss the state of science communication in the 21st century. Why does misinformation spread so easily and what can be done to combat it? How can we improve science education? Tyson also shares the words he thinks are most misunderstood, what they really mean, and some alternatives to use instead. Tyson is the Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and host of the StarTalk podcast. He's hosted numerous science programs including "Nova ScienceNow" and "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey," and has made appearances as himself in programs such as "Family Guy" and "The Simpsons." We want to hear from you! Have a question for the meteorologists? Call 609-272-7099 and leave a message. You might hear your question and get an answer on a future episode! You can also email questions or comments to podcasts@lee.net. About the Across the Sky podcast The weekly weather podcast is hosted on a rotation by the Lee Weather team: Matt Holiner of Lee Enterprises' Midwest group in Chicago, Kirsten Lang of the Tulsa World in Oklahoma, Joe Martucci of the Press of Atlantic City, N.J., and Sean Sublette of the Richmond Times-Dispatch in Virginia. Episode transcript Note: The following transcript was created by Headliner and may contain misspellings and other inaccuracies as it was generated automatically: Sean Sublette: Hello, everyone. I'm, meteorologist Sean Sublette. And welcome to Across the Sky, our national Lee Enterprises Weather podcast. Lee Enterprises has print and digital operations at more than 70 locations across the country, including my home base here in Richmond, Virginia. I'm joined by my colleagues from Scross the Sky, Matt Holiner in Chicago, Joe Martucci at the New Jersey Shore. Kirsten Lang is on assignment this week. Our special guest this week is Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Formally, he is the director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. He has numerous books, television specials, and he hosts a podcast, Star Talk, where science and pop culture collide. And he's one of the most popular science communicators in the country today. His, most recent book is called To Infinity and Beyond: A Journey of Cosmic Discovery. I had a chance to talk with him just before he went out on a speaking tour of the East Coast. And fellas, I got to tell you that I got to sit down with him for about half an hour, and it was absolutely tremendous. You see some of the work that these folks do in popular culture and media, and you think, if you get a chance to talk to them, are they going to be that genuine? And, dude, absolutely was. He was just a joy to talk with. Joe, what did you kind of see? Joe Martucci: Well, I kind of took away the excitement that you had while you were interviewing him, Sean, that was tremendous. I know this was, a really special moment for you, recording, this on your birthday, no less. Happy Birthday, Sean, was. Sean Sublette: Thank you. Joe Martucci: But as somebody who has been to the Hayden Planetarium a number of times in New York City, and just the connection he has with there, of course, it's, very special to have him on and haven't really talked about some Earth and space, of course, but more the broader picture of society today and how he's contributing to the progression of society as the human race. Matt Holiner: Yeah, he really is just great to listen to. Just an excellent communicator. And it just so happens that he wants to communicate science. So that's really what's different about this podcast. Just a heads up. We're not going to just talk about weather on this episode. We really dive into all aspects of science communication and how it's become more challenging now because there's so many voices now, and how do people sort through all the information that's out there and really find the good information? So I really like how he dives into that. It's just an excellent conversation. Sean Sublette: Yeah, we really started off by talking about the importance of scientific literacy, and as you're going to be a consumer of information, what to be mindful of and what to be on the lookout for. So, without further ado, let's get right to our interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson. The importance of scientific literacy and scientific communication in an era of disinformation Sean Sublette: You do so much of this outreach, and it's extraordinary. So I want to talk about the importance of that outreach. specifically the importance of scientific literacy and scientific communication. In an era of disinformation, you work tirelessly to get the solid scientific information out there. There's so much bad information, whether it's disinformation or, know, the change in slash X and Facebook, they're always changing algorithms. So, my first question to you, thinking about cosmic perspectives, as we do, how concerned are you about scientific literacy, both domestically and internationally, and what can any or all of us do to strengthen it? Neil deGrasse Tyson: Yeah, I mean, in a free country, science illiteracy is. Anyone has the right to be illiterate, scientifically illiterate. No one's going to chase after you and pin you down to a table and force feed you science. Of course, in every state, you're required to go to school through some age, but, it's not clear how much science is required in the minimum educational portfolio of each state. But most people do graduate high school. Okay, so we can ask the question, what's going on in the science classroom in the high school? Is it what it needs to be to preempt what we see rampant across society? And apparently it's not enough or it's not the right ingredients. And so I've thought quite a bit about consider. You know, there's this song by Alice Cooper. I don't know, the title of the song maybe just called Schools Out. And the line goes, schools out for the summer. Schools out. an. It's anthemic, right? It's like, school is done and I'm done with school, and I'm going to celebrate that with a rock song. And so no one seems to be asking what's going on in school so that you would celebrate not having to go to school when your only job is to learn. That's an OD state we find ourselves in. And I don't want to blame the student, all right, we've all toiled through classes, but if your only job is to learn, maybe that can be made joyous. Maybe the curiosity necessary to learn, to learn on your own is what school needs to impart in all of its students, so that when you get out of school, you say, I'm sad school is over. But I now will continue to learn on my own because I've been inculcated with a. That's not a good word. I have been infused with, a curiosity about all that I still have yet to learn. Okay, that's a foundational comment about the school system. More specifically about science. We're taught science in these fat books with words that are bold faced that you're supposed to memorize for the exam, and then you move on. And I don't remember science being taught as a means of querying nature. Science is a tool to probe what you do not yet know. And the scientific method, which whoever can remember how to recite it, the recitation and the words used are not very informative. Test hypothesis. No, that's not what the scientific method is. I will tell you what the scientific method is. It is do whatever it takes to not fool yourself into thinking something is true that is not. Or that something is not true that is. That's what the scientific method is. Top to bottom, left to right, front to back. And if it means we can't trust our senses, bring out a chart recorder or bring out some other methods. If it means you're biased, get someone else to check your bias. If you have a hidden bias within you that you don't even see yourself, what are some of the. And, if you're susceptible to thinking something is true just because it feels good, get someone else for whom their feelings are not invested in it being true and get their view on it and compare it with yours. These are ways for the checks and balances of what it is you declare to be true. What I have found is a lot of the misinformation is peddled, shall I use that word? By charismatic people who will tell you, on a YouTube channel or whatever is their platform. I'm telling you the truth. But the big establishment wants to suppress it because they don't want you to know it. Apparently. That's irresistible. It's irresistible for truth telling. It's irresistible for product marketing. All right, I have this new device that will bypass all of these decades of marketing that's gone on with Big Pharma, big business, big government, and I am your advocate. Oh, my gosh. We're all in. When someone appeals in that way, advertisers know this because they know that you will respond more readily to a testimony of another human being than you will to a bar chart or a pie chart, which might encapsulate all the information you need to know about the integrity of the product, but that's insufficient. Get one person saying, this was the best thing I'd ever seen, and say, wow, I want that. So there's a missing dimension to our educational training. Much of it is rooted in our knowledge, understanding, and awareness of probability and statistics. Can you read the weight loss data and find out that 90% of the people do not have the result of the person who's testifying? Did you read that? Did you look at that? If you want to know where you're likely to fall in the data, go take a look. No, you don't want to fall there. You want to be with the successful person. So our inability to think statistically confounds our ability to think sensibly and rationally about data and without understanding what the scientific method is, especially with regard to our bias, implicit or explicit bias, known or unknown bias. It leaves adults susceptible for all the behavior we see on the Internet and especially in social media. So I'm taking the hard, easy answer to you and saying it's the educational system that, if it were properly wired, would preempt so much of what we see in conduct in adulthood. That's a very long answer to your question. But you asked a very loaded question there. Sean Sublette: Well, there's a lot going on there. I'm absolutely of the same mind that there is a lot of money to be made in a capitalistic society and selling something, selling information that people already want to believe. So I'm absolutely of the same mind there. And we see that, all the time. Neil deGrasse Tyson: I want to add one other thing I meant to include. So there's the charismatic person who's telling you they have the answer and others don't. There's also the lone expert. Okay, the person. And we saw this during COVID There's some MDs who are just right. That is not mainstream medicine. This is fringe medicine talking. And so they'll have their pedigree on the screen. MD, Stanford, Harvard, whatever these name. Impressive places. And then you're going to say, well, that's what I want to think is true anyway. It resonates with where I'm coming from. So I'm going to go with them, and I'm going to tell people, I'm listening to an expert. What people are not realizing is that scientific, objective truths are not established by lone wolves. They're established by repeated measurements, observations of, a declared result. And only when the repeated measurements verify it is that result. Anything that can be brought into the world of objective truths until that happens. It is fringe for some reason. Forces were operating to get the public to think that mainstream equals bad for some reason. Cutting through the disinformation in science Neil deGrasse Tyson: When mainstream is exactly what progresses science, it is precisely how it works, and mainstream is not. Oh, let's just all agree and be stubborn about it. No, mainstream is. These are experiments that repeatedly give us approximately or precisely the same result. We're going with it and we're moving on to the next problem, where you will see us fight about what's true and what's not on the frontier. but until then, no. And by the way, the researchers are faceless entities. The people who verify their research, you don't know who they are, they don't have YouTube channels. And so there's this charismatic person speaking on their own YouTube channel, and there's this vaguely rooted result you hear. It sounds vague. Well, some research has found that this is what's actually going on. Here's what you should do. No, I'm listening to this person. And so that's just to round out what it is you were trying to get across there. Sean Sublette: No, I tell people that in meteorology, before the computers got so good in these last 20 years, the best forecast is a consensus forecast. You take ten meteorologists, they look at the data, you take the average of all, they say over time, that's going to be the forecast that ends up correct. There will always be this occasional outlier, for sure, but in the longer term, that's where the money is to be made. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Right? And by the way, the word consensus, I think, officially means opinion. And so that consensus of opinion is actually redundant. But when we use the word consensus for science, these aren't opinions being expressed. These are the results of scientific experiments that are being reported by scientists. It's not simply their opinion that. No, it may come across that way. You say, well, what's the best medical opinion? Right. Opinions are, get a second opinion. All right? Usually when you ask for a second opinion, it's because you didn't like the first answer and you're going to keep doctor hopping until you find an answer you like, and then you're going to say, that's the diagnosis, which is itself a confirmation bias, which is the most pernicious among the biases. I wish we had a different word, but we have to use it. Scientific consensus is the alignment of research outcomes, not the alignment of whimsical opinions held by scientists themselves. Sean Sublette: Well, talk about word usage for a minute, because we know there are certain words we use in the scientific community that have very different connotations in the general public. The first one that comes to mind is theory. When we say a scientific theory, that's pretty close to being effect, as opposed to some kind of wishy washy thing that a lot of, the general public sees, that's kind of hypothesis. We're nowhere near that yet. Are there some words Neil deGrasse Tyson avoids in communication about science? Sean Sublette: Are there some words that you've kind of run up against and you've kind of just decided to avoid in communication? Neil deGrasse Tyson: Tons. Oh, yeah. So, I mean, if you're going to communicate, if you're going to call yourself an educator communicator, then you've got to sift through your entire lexicon, see what works, see what doesn't, see what. Now, I am fortunate. My expertise is in a field where our lexicon is highly transparent, so that I spend much less time defining words for someone than would normally occur with other professions. Jupiter has a big red spot on its atmosphere. We call it Jupiter's red spot. Right. The sun has spots. They're officially called sun spots. Right. So I don't have to then define what a sunspot is. I can just use the term and keep talking about them. So just make that clear with regard to theory. What I've done is because, it's very hard to change the public's understanding of a word. If that word has usage outside of your field, that will persist no matter how you define it for them. So theory is one of those words. So someone at home will know, I have a theory that my, so that's how they're using the word theory. You can't knock on every door and tell people to use the word differently. So I use the word theory only for established theories that are already in place. Einstein's general theory of relativity, special freely, evolutionary, theory, this sort of thing. And when people say, oh, well, if it's just a theory, that's, of course, the buzz phrase, I say, no, a theory is the highest level of understanding we have of the universe. It is not the lowest level. The lowest level would be a hypothesis. So if someone says, well, if I have a theory that, no, I say, Einstein had a theory, you have a hypothesis awaiting testing, and then people chuckle at that. So no one is then, distracted by it. So the word hypothesis is very helpful in this regard. Just tell people they have a hypothesis. If it's not yet tested, it's a hypothesis. If it's tested and it organizes ideas and it gives us insights into future discoveries, it is elevated to the level of theory. So I will say that if the conversation goes there. But if I'm just a few sentences and sound bites on the evening news, I will not use the term at all, by the way, nor will I use the word fact. A fact is that word is fraught. It's fraught because it is a fact that, if I remember the quotes correctly, it's a fact that President Trump said you could use bleach to cure COVID or whoever. It is a fact that they said it. That doesn't mean it works. So there's plenty of facts out there that reference things that are not true. So, like I said, the word fact is fraught. It is a fact that Andrew Wakefield published a paper declaring a, connection between MmR M M. vaccine and the m m measles, mumps, rubella vaccine and autism. There's a fact that he published a paper exploring that connection. That doesn't mean that's a connection. So it is a fact that mothers reported that after their kids were vaccinated, they showed, symptoms of autism. Okay? That doesn't make it a cause and effect correlation. So I don't. I never use the word fact ever. The word does not work to that point. Sean Sublette: Are there other words that you were able to use in your external communications 1520 years ago? You just throw your hands up like, I can't use that word anymore. It's lost its meaning in the general conversation. I've got to think of something else now. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Yeah, of course. No, it's not an aha moment. It's a continual assessment and measurement of the stock value of words as they are used, come in and out of use as their definitions shift, as cultural, social, religious, political mores shift. You can't just declare that no one wants to learn. Or how come, they don't do their homework. Then you're not being an educator. Sorry. You're not being a communicator. Yeah, you are. You're being the professor talking to the chalkboard while you write down your equations. And without any concern whether people are either paying attention or meeting you 90% of the way there. You can't claim yourself to be a communicator unless you turn around, face the audience, and meet them 90% of the way towards wherever their brain wiring is. This happens all the time. I also find that humor enables people to smile while they're learning, and then they come back for more. But the landscape of humor has changed, as you surely know, over the years and especially over the recent decades. Certain things that were funny in 2000 are not funny today because our sensitivities have been realigned or arisen, or maybe the sensitivities were always there, but there was no platform, to position them. So, yes, plenty of words. Happens all the time. Sean Sublette: All right, so let's step back a little bit and we talk about. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Here's a good example. I wrote about this in the late 90s. So this is 25 years, in the can right now of, course in science, in a measurement, we speak of measurement errors. And so the public wants to know what is the answer? And they don't really have much way to embrace measurement errors. It doesn't really work unless we retrain everyone in school. Sean Sublette: I don't think box and whisker plots test, very well, do they? Neil deGrasse Tyson: Exactly. So what happens is I saw a news account of, a research paper that described the result, and it said, oh, but, it didn't catch on because the paper had a lot of errors in it. I said, what does that even mean? And then I realized the paper talked about the measurement errors, and the journalists thought that this meant it had errors. And so I've never used the word error unless it's a literal error. So I changed error to uncertainty. I wrote an essay called Certain Uncertainties, where I talked about, when you measure something, there's uncertainties around those measurements. And I don't even use the word margin of error, which is still used when they report political voting results. That's a start. Margin of error plus or, -3% that came in, in the last 20 years. That's very good. It's a start. But error is the wrong word because they are not errors. Even though we use that term, uncertainty still works. That still has scientific validity, and you don't have to define it for the public. They know what an uncertainty is. And you can say some measured, quantities are more uncertain than others. That is a completely understandable sentence. What would happen if the sun instantly went away? Sean Sublette: All right, before I cut you loose, I do have a couple of more tangible science questions. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Sorry I haven't given you a chance to ask. No, this is two questions so far. Sean Sublette: This is just extraordinary. And I'm happy to have you here and talk about these things. So I was reading the book and. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Which book? Sean Sublette: The most recent one. To infinity and beyond. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Yes. Just came out two months ago. Sean Sublette: So, speed of light, of course, we know the speed of light, and it takes eight minutes for sunlight to get to Earth. Neil deGrasse Tyson: About that. Yeah. Sean Sublette: Right. One of the things that I have trouble thinking about, and this is one of these cosmic query type things, sun instantly goes away. We wouldn't know about it for eight minutes. Neil deGrasse Tyson: That's correct. We'd still orbit, we'd still feel sunlight, we'd still feel gravity. Sean Sublette: That's exactly what I wanted to ask. Does the gravitational information also take eight minutes? Does the Earth still act as if it is going in orbit around the sun, or is that gravitational force instantly gone? Neil deGrasse Tyson: Yeah. So, there's a slight, subtle difference here. In Einsteinian description of gravity, gravity is the curvature of spacetime. Okay? So we are orbiting in this curved spacetime continuum caused by the sun. And the dimples in a rubber sheet get you most of the way to understand that. Where we are sort of, spiraling, orbiting, in the dimple. Okay. So if you instantly take away the sun, that is a change in the gravitational field. And changes in the gravitational field move at the speed of light. So it would take eight minutes for you to even know that the sun's gravitational field was no longer operating on Earth, and we would instantly fly off at a tangent if that were the case. I mean, after the eight minutes. Eight minutes and 20 seconds, if you want to be precise. Sean Sublette: Right. Neil deGrasse Tyson: And, Einstein demonstrated that gravity would move at the same as the speed of light. Sean Sublette: All right, excellent. Neil deGrasse Tyson explains his speaking tour and what to expect Sean Sublette: Last thing before I let you go, talk a little bit about this speaking tour. I've seen it advertised at different theaters slightly different ways. Is it going to be very different at each place, or is this kind of all tying back to, to infinity and beyond, or what can people kind of expect? Neil deGrasse Tyson: So thanks for noticing that. So, my speaking tour is hardly ever bordering on never related to books that I've just published. The speaking tour is I get invited by a city, and many cities across the country, fascinatingly, have this sort of old grand Dam theater from 100 years ago, that if there's municipal funds, typically there are or business interests, they fix it up and what do you call it? Renovate. And they fix up the molding and the statues and the gilding. And so it's beautiful spaces. And these are back when going to a theater, you would dress up to go to see movies in the movie theater. So many of them come from that era. So many towns have such theaters, and they remain in active use. I get invited to a city to present, and so I'm, honored and flattered. I give them a list of twelve to 15 possible topics that they choose from, and then they tell me, we want you to come talk on this subject. And that's what I do. So for Richmond, they picked the topic that I've given them. Cosmic collisions. Oh, my gosh. Cosmic things that go bump in the night. There's so many things that collide. Stars collide, galaxies collide, black holes collide. Asteroids collide with Earth. We collided with an asteroid recently to try to deflect it. So it's everything that's going on in the universe. This idea that, oh, we live in a static, beautiful. No, the universe is a shooting gallery. And so I'm there to talk about how much of a shooting gallery it is. And yes, I have some videos, slides, and it's mostly me talking, but that's what Richmond is getting. There are other topics, I think I've been in this venue before. Other topics that either they didn't choose because I was there a couple of years ago or not would be the search for life in the universe. And that's continually being updated with the congressional hearings on aliens and all of this. That's a whole topic, search for life in the universe. One of my favorites is an astrophysicist goes to the movies, and that's where I highlight all manner of scenes, not just from Sci-Fi films, but other films you would never imagine cared about science. Yet there's science in it, either done very well or done very badly. And I highlight that. And that was so popular. There's a sequel to it called an astrophysicist goes to the movies. The sequel, anyhow, that's just a smattering of the topics. And typically there's a book that I written recently, and if the theater is interested, they might task a local, indie publisher to sell them in the lobby. But most of the time, that's not what happens. And if they do, it has nothing to do with the talk. In other words, when I go on, quote, tour, I'm, not trying to sell you anything. I'm a servant of your appetite, of your cosmic appetite, as declared by the host for whatever it's their judgment of the audience's interest. Sean Sublette: Excellent. Sean Sublette: Well, I've got the book. It's wonderful. And personally, thank you for, as a meteorologist, thank you for starting with the atmosphere in the book. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Oh, we did. Thanks for noticing that we start. Sean Sublette: Oh, I noticed that right away. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Yeah, there's a whole discussion of the atmosphere, because the book, to infinity and beyond, by the way, it's a beautiful book. I would say that even if I was not co-author of it, I co-wrote it with our longtime senior, producer for Startalk my podcast. This is a collaboration between Star Talk and National Geographic books. And so the book is, they don't know how to make an ugly book. This is National Geographic, so it's highly illustrated. And it's an exploration of what it was like standing flat footed on Earth, looking up. And what did it take for us to ascend from Earth to the stars and know we go from Icarus? That's a nice first story to tell. And Icarus dies. And you say to yourself, well, oh, I'm not going to try to fly. Or you're going to say, well, let me maybe design the wings differently of a different material rather than wax. Okay. And of course, they thought that temperature would get higher as you ascended the atmosphere, when, of course, the exact opposite is the case. And so it's fun to explore what was imagined to be sort of infinitely far away in the history of this quest. We would then conquer it. Let me use a less militaristic word. We would then achieve those goals, and then we're standing in a new place now. We are now in balloons, and we can say, well, how do we fly with not a balloon. Now we have airplanes, and how do we fly out of the atmosphere? We have rockets. How do we fly beyond? How do we fly to the moon? How do we fly beyond the moon? Well, we can't do that yet, but we can send our robotic emissaries. How do we go beyond those? Well, then our mind takes us there. All right. And so part of this quest, the whole book chronicles and storytells this quest, which is quite, the noblest thing. Our species did it, and no one other, species comes close to even wondering that this could be something we could do. So I got to hand it to humans, to making this work in that way. So, yeah, that book only just came out two months ago and very proud of it, and it's a very beautiful. And the DNA of my podcast, Star Talk, is science, pop culture, and humor. I mentioned humor earlier. The pop culture part is you show up at the door with a pop culture scaffold that I already know, because that's the definition of pop culture. It's a common knowledge. I don't have to say who Beyoncé is or what a football field looks like. There's certain fundamentals that are out there. We take the science and clad it onto that scaffold so that you already care about something, and now you care about it more because I've added more information for you to celebrate about the thing this pop culture thing you cared about. Point is, in this book, we do that continually. If there's a Hollywood movie that touches some of the topics that we address, this is like the scenery along the way of the book. I dip into the movie and we talk about how well the movie did or didn't, portray that physics. Sean Sublette: Wonderful. Dr. Tyson, I know you've got to get going, so thank you so much for your time. Shout out to Chuck, nice and all the team there at Star Talk. Love the work, love what he brings to it as well. And when you have the guest, my. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Comedian, my co-host, comedian or foil. Sean Sublette: But, it's wonderful. Thank you so much. Looking forward to seeing you, when you're down here in Richmond next week. And travel safe, sir. Neil deGrasse Tyson: Excellent. Thank you for those well wishes. Neil deGrasse Tyson says you have to reach people where they are Sean Sublette: And guys. I was just absolutely in my element talking with him about science and how to communicate science, and the things you want to do, as he said, to reach people where they are. I let my daughter know I was doing this and she really emphasized this point that he made is that you have to meet people 90% of where they are already. Don't turn your back and write on a chalkboard. Look at people, be with people, understand where they are to make that connection with them. That is so key in this day and Age. Joe Martucci: I agree with that 100%. I think I might even said on this podcast, when it comes to weather forecast, you Have, I don't kNow, maybe two dozen places to get a weather forecast from at any given point in time, at any point in day. So what differentiates you from those other 24 people? Well, accuracy is going to have something to do with it, but a lot of times it has to do with the connection that you have with the community. Now, there's downsides to that. as Neil deGrasse Tyson spoke about, you have some people who are very personable, but who might not know what they're talking about. But when you have somebody who knows what they're talking about is in the community or meeting with the people where they are, that is where you have the best results. And that's why you have people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who's widely respected and acclaimed not only because he knows what he's talking about, but because he's doing it in a way where you can listen and say, hey, yeah, I know what he's talking about. Hey, I Know What She's Talking About. Joe Martucci: So, great job, Sean, with the podcast. Matt Holiner: yeah, there's just a lot to unpack mean, I wish we could have kept the conversation going. I wish we all could have been in there and asked questions. We could have chatted with him for hours. But obviously a very busy guy and does not have the time for, you know, I think what really highlighted for me the challenge that we're facing these days is he went through words that are difficult to use these days and have double meanings. He talked about how he doesn't even like to use the word fact. He Said the word does NOt work, fact. And that kind of blew my mind. It's like, gosh, we don't even know what facts are because he says it's a fact that somebody said this, but it's not a fact that what they said is true. And it's like, gosh, that's a good point. So even the meaning of the word fact is difficult. And how I liked also how he used, if something hasn't been tested yet, what you're saying is a hypothesis. It's not a theory. He talked about, oh, I have a theory about this. It's like, no, you have a hypothesis because you haven't tested it yet. If it's been tested, then you can call it a theory. So just talking about that and the word error, he mentioned that as well. How if you use the word error, people might say, oh, well, then this paper is just garbage because it's full of errors. Like, no, those were measurement errors. It's talking about uncertainty. It wasn't an error itself. So he's very cautious about the word error and only using the word error when a true error was made. So, gosh, we have to be so careful about the wording because it can be misconstrued and misunderstood so easily. Gosh, him just going through those different words just shows you what a challenge it is today, how you have to be so careful about the wording and is all about the wording and being very explicit and explaining things in detail. Otherwise it'll get totally misunderstood. Sean Sublette: It takes a lot of work because certain words have different connotations. And like you said, you're not going to go in, knock on people's doors and go, no, you're using that word wrong. You're not going to do that. Right. So this is why you kind of have to take opportunities as they come to redirect, what you want to get out of a word or a meaning like that. It's like when we talk about weather, we talk about severe weather. In meteorology, we're talking about something very specific. We're talking about damaging winds that are generally more than 58 miles an hour. We're talking about a tornado. But to a lot of the general public, severe weather is just bad. That's just bad weather, right? So language is always changing, and as he said, it's always evolving. It's not like, well, we just kind of watch how the lexicon changes. Some terms just don't mean what they used to. Humor is changing through time, so it is always a process. And I think that's one of the things that anybody who's trying to communicate science needs to be aware of. And he does a great job with the humor as Well. I try to do it with humor. sometimes I'm a little more successful, than others, but it was certainly just a great podcast. I'm very grateful for him, to spend some time with us. Coming up on the Across the Sky podcast: American Ninja Warrior, Bob Dylan and more! Sean Sublette: Joe. We've got a couple other more interesting things coming up, down the pike, right? Joe Martucci: Oh, yeah, we sure do. So coming up on the, Monday after Thanksgiving, this is October. Excuse me. November 22. Oh, my gosh. Doing it all wrong. Let's try it again. November 27. There we go. Third time is a charm. We are going to have Joe Morovsky from American Ninja Warrior Come on the podcast. Joe, is also known as the Weatherman on American Ninja Warrior. Yes, he is a meteorologist, and yes, we are going to talk to him about the weather and his time on the NBC hit show. Then on December the fourth, we actually have one of my college professors, Dr. Alan Robock. Now he courses a meteorologist, but he's also a very big Bob Dylan fan. In fact, he's such a Bob Dylan fan that he did his PhD thesis on Bob Dylan and the Weather. so that is really interesting. And then we also have an episode for you on December 18. That's going to be ten things to know about winter. And then sometime in that week, between Christmas and New Year's, we're going to have our year in review. So the train keeps on rolling here at the across the Sky podcast team. we've gotten a couple of emails of feedback over the past days and weeks, and we certainly appreciate that. And you certainly can continue to send that to Podcast@Lee.net that's Podcast@Lee.net. Or feeling like it and want to give us a call. You certainly can at 609-272-7099. 609-272-7099 Back to you, Sean. Sean Sublette: All right, good stuff all around. Anything else, Matt? Are you good, man? Matt Holiner: I'm still letting that interview wash over me. Man. I, think the other thing he know, a lot of times, a lot of the people that are spreading misinformation are very charismatic, and so that's why they're catchy and people latch onto them. But it's like, well, you know what? We need charismatic people to be spreading good information. He is the prime example. We need more Neil deGrasse Tysons in the world to spread good information and be charismatic. Sean Sublette: Yeah. No argument with that for me. All right, gentlemen, thank you very much. And Joe Martucci and Matt Holiner. And in absentia, Kirsten Lang in Tulsa, thanks for joining us. A week on the across the Sky Podcast. I'm meteorologist Sean sublet in Richmond, Virginia. Have a great week, and we will see you next time.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week holds anniversaries for two important milestones in nuclear warfare. On November 1, 1952, the United States detonated a massive hydrogen bomb in the Marshall Islands. The new weapon vaporized a whole island, leaving behind a mile-wide crater. That bomb was around 700 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima seven years prior, and it renewed fears of nuclear annihilation, which would grip the world for generations to come.Three decades later, on October 30, 1983, millions of Americans flipped open the Sunday paper to find a shadowy, apocalyptic photo with the words: “Would nuclear war be the end of the world?”Legendary scientist Dr. Carl Sagan, writing for Parade Magazine, introduced the world to “nuclear winter,” the terrifying climate changes that might be brought on by nuclear war.Sagan conducted some of the first research on nuclear winter, and he spent years warning politicians, world leaders, and the general public about it. Today, with thousands of nuclear weapons still in existence, the risk of nuclear winter isn't zero.Ira talks with another pioneer in nuclear winter research, Dr. Alan Robock, a climate scientist and distinguished professor at Rutgers University, about the science of nuclear winter, how fear of those consequences shaped policies, and what's happening with the world's nuclear arsenal now.To stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters. Transcripts for each segment will be available the week after the show airs on sciencefriday.com.

After four weeks, the NPT Review Conference concluded without consensus, with Russia blocking approval for the final document. Tom Collina sits down with Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova from the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation to discuss what this setback to RevCon means for the future of the NPT and arms control. On Early Warning, Lauren Billet speaks with Dr. Alan Robock, climate scientist and professor from Rutgers University. His new research paper with Dr. Lili Xia warns us that there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war. He discusses the key findings of the report and the humanitarian and environmental consequences that will result from a nuclear conflict between two states.

Climate scientist Alan Robock, one of the authors of a groundbreaking Nature Food paper on the little-discussed impacts of nuclear war, talks to Robert Scheer about his work. 

A new study in Nature Food has revealed, once again, the unprecedented danger of nuclear weapons. Built on the foundation of decades of research, it's about the climate change and global famine that would follow even a limited nuclear exchange.The models are a terrifying warning. A limited war between Pakistan and India that uses just three percent of the world's nuclear weapons could kill a third of the Earth's population.In this special edition of Cyber, we talk about the study, its implications, and what we can do to avoid tragedy. Here with me to have that discussion is one of the author's behind the study, Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock.Robock will lay out what he and his colleagues found in just a moment, to help us understand what actions we should take is Dr. Ruth Mitchell from the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Alicia Sanders-Zakre from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.Stories discussed in this episode:A Nuclear War Between the U.S. and Russia Would Starve 5 Billion PeopleWe're recording CYBER live on Twitch. Watch live during the week. Follow us there to get alerts when we go live. We take questions from the audience and yours might just end up on the show.Subscribe to CYBER on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

A new study in Nature Food has revealed, once again, the unprecedented danger of nuclear weapons. Built on the foundation of decades of research, it's about the climate change and global famine that would follow even a limited nuclear exchange.The models are a terrifying warning. A limited war between Pakistan and India that uses just three percent of the world's nuclear weapons could kill a third of the Earth's population.In this special edition of Cyber, we talk about the study, its implications, and what we can do to avoid tragedy. Here with me to have that discussion is one of the author's behind the study, Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock.Robock will lay out what he and his colleagues found in just a moment, to help us understand what actions we should take is Dr. Ruth Mitchell from the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Alicia Sanders-Zakre from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.Stories discussed in this episode:A Nuclear War Between the U.S. and Russia Would Starve 5 Billion PeopleWe're recording CYBER live on Twitch. Watch live during the week. Follow us there to get alerts when we go live. We take questions from the audience and yours might just end up on the show.Subscribe to CYBER on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the earth's temperature will rise by almost 35 degrees Fahrenheit by 2040 if we don't curb our greenhouse gas emissions. But what if there was another way — what if we could simply shade the planet from the sun's hot rays? It sounds like something right out of a science fiction movie, but research into making it a reality has recently won some powerful financial backers. Solar geo-engineering, as the idea is called, doesn't just pose environmental and technological challenges, but also questions of international cooperation and governance.  Dr. Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor of climate science in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University, joined us to explain the research, the technology, and the unintended consequences.

A Spectre is Haunting Europe: Nuclear Winter with Dr. Alan Robock & Dr. Joshua Coupe On Sustainability Now! Sunday, March 20th, 5-6 PM on KSQD 90.7 FM and KSQD.org “A spectre is haunting Europe,” but this time it is not communism. Vladimir Putin has put Russia's nuclear forces on “special combat readiness,” bringing back memories and fears for some of us, reminiscent of the darkest days of the Cold War. What would be the climatic consequences of nuclear war? Our guest are Dr. Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor in the Environmental Sciences Department at Rutgers University and Dr. Joshua Coupe, a postdoctoral researcher at Louisiana State University. They and their colleagues are modeling the climatic consequences of a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States, aka, “Nuclear Winter,” a notion popularized by Carl Sagan in the 1980s (some of us are old enough to remember both). That's our explosive show broadcast on Sunday, March 20th, 2022. Previous broadcasts of Sustainability Now! are archived at KSQD.org and on Pocket Casts, Google Podcasts and Spotify. Sustainability Now! is underwritten by the Sustainable Systems Research Foundation and Environmental Innovations. Here are some resources: Coupe, J., Bardeen, C. G., Robock, A., & Toon, O. B. (2019). "Nuclear winter responses to nuclear war between the United States and Russia in the Whole Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 124, 8522–43. Jeannie Peterson, ed. The Aftermath--The Human and Ecological Consequences of Nuclear War (New York: Pantheon/Ambio, 1983). Kjølv Egeland (2021) "The Ideology of Nuclear Order," New Political Science, 43:2, 208-230. Rutgers U. Research Archive: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/

Alan Robock is a climatologist at Rutgers University and a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His research interests include geoengineering and the climate effects of nuclear winter.

On MLK Day Rancor From African American Leaders at Senators Sinema and Manchin | The World's 10 Richest Men Double Their Wealth While 160 Million More Are Pushed Into Poverty | With Tonga Covered in Ash, the Effects of Volcanic Eruptions on Climate backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

This episode is the first of a series of episodes that seeks to bring the Coffee in Space audience the science behind the fiction. In our first of this series, I asked climatologist Alan Robock to join me to talk about the climate impacts of a massive nuclear war. Fans of the books On the Beach, The Postman, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep will appreciate the interview.Dr. Robock is a professor at Rutgers University and holds a doctorate from MIT. He's published over 400 articles on the subject, including 260  articles in peer-reviewed journals. Read his full bio HERE.Get a full list of his published works HERE. Like the podcast episode? You can "Buy me a Coffee" as a thank you! I'll even give you a free short story to show my gratitude. Thank you!

Alan Robock, climate science professor at Rutgers University, joins our virtual studio to talk about his research on climate intervention and nuclear winter. Robock also works at the Physicist Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction.

Global warming can cause an extinction-level hole in the ozone, says Dr. John Marshall from UKs University of Southampton. From Milan, Dr. Anna Abatayos paper Solar geoengineering may lead to excessive cooling and high strategic uncertainty. Aided by Alan Robock, Alex reports 20 reasons why climate engineering may not be a good idea.

Global warming can cause an extinction-level hole in the ozone, says Dr. John Marshall from UKs University of Southampton. From Milan, Dr. Anna Abatayos paper Solar geoengineering may lead to excessive cooling and high strategic uncertainty. Aided by Alan Robock, Alex reports 20 reasons why climate engineering may not be a good idea.

Global warming can cause an extinction-level hole in the ozone, says Dr. John Marshall from UKs University of Southampton. From Milan, Dr. Anna Abatayos paper Solar geoengineering may lead to excessive cooling and high strategic uncertainty. Aided by Alan Robock, Alex reports 20 reasons why climate engineering may not be a good idea.

The threat of nuclear war may have faded from the public consciousness, but the risks to humanity are higher than many people realise, including those who have the power to use them. Show notesKennedy's 1961 UN SpeechTreaty on the prohibition of nuclear weaponsWill the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons affect nuclear deproliferation through legal channels?International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)How high is the risk of nuclear war between Russia and US?Accidental nuclear war timelineNuclear Winter: Global consequences of multiple nuclear explosionsNuclear winter may bring a decade of destructionRapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastropheNuclear Winter with Alan Robock and Brian Toon – FOL PodcastUS confirms INF treaty withdrawalAt the Brink podcast by Lisa Perryhttps://www.facebook.com/thehereandnowpodcast/ https://twitter.com/herenowpodcast emailthehereandnow@gmail.com  Royalty Free Music from https://audiohub.com Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/thehereandnowpodcast)

What is geoengineering, and could it really help us solve the climate crisis? The sixth episode of Not Cool features Dr. Alan Robock, meteorologist and climate scientist, on types of geoengineering solutions, the benefits and risks of geoengineering, and the likelihood that we may need to implement such technology. He also discusses a range of other solutions, including economic and policy reforms, shifts within the energy sector, and the type of leadership that might make these transformations possible. Topics discussed include: -Types of geoengineering, including carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management -Current geoengineering capabilities -The Year Without a Summer -The termination problem -Feasibility of geoengineering solutions -Social cost of carbon -Fossil fuel industry -Renewable energy solutions and economic accessibility -Biggest risks of stratospheric geoengineering

Hear from Dr. Zia Mian, co-founder of the Princeton University Program on Science and Global Security, and Dr. Alan Robock, professor of climate science at Rutgers University.

On Reality Asserts Itself, climatologist and IPCC lead author Alan Robock tells Paul Jay that he's a skeptic who tries to be critical and make conclusions based on the evidence

This week we’re going to take a look at Russia and the future of the U.S.-Russian relationship, in three chapters: • After Putin (at the 1:30 mark); • Before Putin (17:14); • Now what (28:16). We'll revisit a battle against the Mongols 639 years ago, move ahead to Putin’s “zoo” of scary long-range weapons unveiled last year, and all the way forward to the challenges that come well after the Department of Justice’s Trump-Russia probe here in 2019. Our guests this week are Michael Carpenter, Senior Director of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington; Mark Galeotti, Senior Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London; Pavel Podvig, a physicist trained at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology; and Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Our music is by Terry Devine-King, Barrie Gledden, Richard Lacy, David Kelly, Helen Jane Long, Philip Guyler, Tim Garland and Sam Wedgwood — via AudioNetwork.com. Related reading: "We Need to Talk About Putin," a 2019 book by Mark Galeotti (link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07G2VVRVB/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2); "Kulikovo, 1380: A Battle Almost Lost in Myth," a recent essay also by Mark Galeotti (https://ospreypublishing.com/blog/Kulikovo_1380/); and "Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war," a report from Alan Robock of Rutgers and Owen Brian Toon of the University of Colorado-Boulder, here: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSAD.pdf

In a "Post IPCC World," KC and JP ponder the mechanisms of changing our culture, if that's even possible. Aside from political & economic climate change mitigation arenas, climate researcher Alan Robock says we also need to change our "culture," but who controls it, and how is culture defined? PRESS CONFERENCE: United Nations Engineering Defense Council (35:10) [thanks JA & CJ] PLANT OF THE WEEK: Roselle (aka hibiscus) EPISODE SPONSORS: Trixie's Hard Yogurt (0:00), Sir Richard Musk's Latest Scheme (19:00) [thanks Robin & Damien], & Dick Blister's Tommy's Termites (1:00:30)

Nine countries, including North Korea, have nuclear weapons. What would happen if a nuclear bomb was dropped-- say, in New York City? We talk to nuclear historian Dr. Alex Wellerstein, nuclear engineer Dr. Tetsuji Imanaka, and epidemiologist Dr. Eric Grant. UPDATE 04/27: We've adjusted this episode to correct the elevated risk of cancer in survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs. If you survived the atomic bombs your risk of cancer is 10% higher than someone who is the same age as you. Check out our full transcript here: http://bit.ly/2salOAK Selected readings: Alex’s nuclear weapon simulation website Tetsuji’s paper calculating the radiation exposure of Hiroshima survivors This review of the Life Span Study of atomic bomb survivors This sobering report on nuclear winter To find a list of our sponsors and show-related promo codes, go to gimlet.fm/sponsors This episode has been produced by Heather Rogers, Wendy Zukerman, our senior producer Kaitlyn Sawrey, Rose Rimler, and Shruti Ravindran, with help from Romilla Karnick. We’re edited by Blythe Terrell. Additional thoughts from Lulu Miller. Fact checking by Michelle Harris. Mix and sound design by Emma Munger. Music written by Bobby Lord and Emma Munger. Thanks for recording help from John Wild. For this episode we also spoke to Prof. Richard Wakeford, Dr. Richard Turco, Prof. Brian Toon, Prof. Alan Robock, Dr. Dale Preston, Dr. William Kennedy, Dr. Jonathan D. Pollack, and a bunch of other experts on North Korea and nuclear weapons. Thank you so much. Also, special thanks to Shigeko Sasamori and Kathleen Sullivan. An extra special thanks to the Zukerman family and Joseph Lavelle Wilson.

ENCORE  Everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it. Not that they haven’t tried.  History is replete with attempts to control the weather, but we’d settle for an accurate seven-day forecast. Find out how sophisticated technology might improve accuracy, including predicting the behavior of severe storms.  Plus, the age when “weather forecast” was a laughable idea, but why 19th century rebel scientists pursued it anyway. Also, a meteorologist who was falsely claimed to have “solved” the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle, and a climate scientist recounts the history of trying to control the weather, and the potential future of geoengineering. Guests: Cliff Mass – Professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington. Peter Moore – Author of “The Weather Experiment: The Pioneers Who Sought to See the Future.” Steven Miller – Meteorologist, Colorado State University Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere. Alan Robock – Meteorologist and climatologist, Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University, IPCC lead author.

Nuclear weapons and mega asteroids: what would the aftermath look like? CrowdScience explores past extinction events and future dystopias. In a past episode, CrowdScience headed to Denmark to find out whether humans could go the way of the dinosaurs – mass extinction triggered by a large asteroid impact 66 million years ago. Although no killer rocks are on route to Earth any time soon, we do not have to look far for other dystopias. “Do we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world?”, listener Ronald from Uganda asks CrowdScience. It turns out there is a web app which can help answer this question. Together with its maker nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein, presenter Anand Jagatia tests hypothetical nuclear disaster scenarios and uncovers the nature of nuclear destruction in interviewees with climate scientist Alan Robock. Do you have a question we can turn into a programme? Email us at crowdscience@bbc.co.uk Presenter: Anand Jagatia Producer: Louisa Field (Image: Explosion of a nuclear bomb Credit: Getty Images)

I recently sat down with Meteorologist Alan Robock from Rutgers University and physicist Brian Toon from the University of Colorado to discuss what is potentially the most devastating consequence of nuclear war: nuclear winter.

Mr. Robock says coal burning must end now and fracking is not a good transitional form of energy production. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 6, 2014.

Mr. Robock says a nuclear war between the United States and Russia would produce so much smoke that temperatures would get below freezing even in the summertime, crops would die and there would be no food for the entire planet. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 5, 2014.

Mr. Robock takes on many of the arguments against the thesis that CO2 produced by industrial society is the main contributor to global warming. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 4, 2014.

On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Mr. Robock says his initial work led him to investigate the role of volcanoes in global warming, but years of reports convinced him that CO2 is the most likely cause. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced April 30, 2014.

On Reality Asserts Itself, climatologist and IPCC lead author Alan Robock tells Paul Jay that he's a skeptic who tries to be critical and make conclusions based on the evidence.

Could disastrous floods and tornadoes ever happen in New Jersey? Profs. Alan Robock, Tony Broccoli from RU tell us why not. Plus, we speak with the Red Cross-NNJ chp. to learn more about relief efforts.

Managing Incoming Solar Radiation Largely out of concern that society may fall short of taking large and rapid enough measures to effectively contain the problem of global warming, two prominent atmospheric scientists - Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1995, and Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research - published papers in 2006, suggesting that society might consider using geoengineering schemes to identify a temporarily "fix" to the problem. The schemes were suggested as an interim measure intended to buy time to prevent the worst damage from global warming while society used that time to identify and deploy measures to address the root cause of the problem. Such suggestions however, are not new. The concept of geoengineering - deliberately using technology to modify Earth's environment - has been discussed in the context of climate change since at least 1960. Over the years, proposals have included everything from carbon sequestration through ocean fertilization to damming the oceans. Crutzen and Wigley argued that geoengineering schemes, if done continuously, could reduce global warming enough to buy society time to address mitigation. However, geoengineering schemes may not be the answer. And in fact, such measures have the potential to create more problems than they solve. In particular, Crutzen and Wigley focused on blocking incoming solar radiation, an idea that has generated much interest in the press and the scientific community. Nature offers an example of how to do this. Volcanic eruptions cool the climate for up to a couple of years by injecting precursors to sulfate aerosol particles into the stratosphere, which has the effect of temporarily blocking incoming sunlight. Clean Coal Technology and Future Prospects Clean coal technologies are real, commonly used in commercial industrial gasification and likely essential to reduce CO2 due to the fast growing use of coal worldwide, especially in China. Commercial example of clean coal technology in the USA is the 25 year-old coal to synthetic natural gas (SNG) plant in North Dakota where all of the CO2 is captured and most is geologically storage for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in Canada. The key issue is expanding clean coal technologies into coal-based electric power generation. This expansion presents additional challenges - more technology options and higher cost of CO2 capture than for industrial gasification. This also requires large-scale demonstration of all three CO2 capture technology options: pre, post and oxygen combustion. In time, the CO2 capture and storage costs will be reduced by both “learning by doing” and developing advanced technologies already moving in to small-scale demonstrations. Biographies Dr. Alan Robock is a Distinguished Professor of atmospheric science in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University and the associate director of its Center for Environmental Prediction. He also directs the Rutgers Undergraduate Meteorology Program. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1970 with a B.A. in Meteorology, and from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with an S.M. in 1974 and Ph.D. in 1977 in Meteorology. Before graduate school, he served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Philippines. He was a professor at the University of Maryland, 1977-1997, and the State Climatologist of Maryland, 1991-1997, before coming to Rutgers. Dale Simbeck joined SFA Pacific in 1980 as a founding partner. His principal activities involve technical, economic and market assessments of energy and environmental technologies for the major international energy companies. This work includes electric power generation, heavy oil upgrading, emission controls and synthesis gas production plus utilization.

Managing Incoming Solar Radiation Largely out of concern that society may fall short of taking large and rapid enough measures to effectively contain the problem of global warming, two prominent atmospheric scientists - Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1995, and Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research - published papers in 2006, suggesting that society might consider using geoengineering schemes to identify a temporarily "fix" to the problem. The concept of geoengineering - deliberately using technology to modify Earth's environment - has been discussed in the context of climate change since at least 1960. Over the years, proposals have included everything from carbon sequestration through ocean fertilization to damming the oceans. Crutzen and Wigley argued that geoengineering schemes, if done continuously, could reduce global warming enough to buy society time to address mitigation. However, geoengineering schemes may not be the answer. And in fact, such measures have the potential to create more problems than they solve. In particular, Crutzen and Wigley focused on blocking incoming solar radiation, an idea that has generated much interest in the press and the scientific community. Nature offers an example of how to do this. Volcanic eruptions cool the climate for up to a couple of years by injecting precursors to sulfate aerosol particles into the stratosphere, which has the effect of temporarily blocking incoming sunlight. It is true that volcanic eruptions cool the climate, but their effects are not innocuous, and should serve as a warning to society to be very cautious about deploying such geoengineering “solutions” without careful and considered evaluation beforehand. Among other things, the particles from volcanic eruptions also cause ozone depletion. Clean Coal Technology and Future Prospects Clean coal technologies are real, commonly used in commercial industrial gasification and likely essential to reduce CO2 due to the fast growing use of coal worldwide, especially in China. Commercial example of clean coal technology in the USA is the 25 year-old coal to synthetic natural gas (SNG) plant in North Dakota where all of the CO2 is captured and most is geologically storage for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in Canada. The key issue is expanding clean coal technologies into coal-based electric power generation. This expansion presents additional challenges - more technology options and higher cost of CO2 capture than for industrial gasification. This also requires large-scale demonstration of all three CO2 capture technology options: pre, post and oxygen combustion. In time, the CO2 capture and storage costs will be reduced by both “learning by doing” and developing advanced technologies already moving in to small-scale demonstrations. Biographies Dr. Alan Robock is a Distinguished Professor of atmospheric science in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University and the associate director of its Center for Environmental Prediction. He also directs the Rutgers Undergraduate Meteorology Program. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1970 with a B.A. in Meteorology, and from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with an S.M. in 1974 and Ph.D. in 1977 in Meteorology. Before graduate school, he served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Philippines. He was a professor at the University of Maryland, 1977-1997, and the State Climatologist of Maryland, 1991-1997, before coming to Rutgers. Dale Simbeck joined SFA Pacific in 1980 as a founding partner. His principal activities involve technical, economic and market assessments of energy and environmental technologies for the major international energy companies. This work includes electric power generation, heavy oil upgrading, emission controls and synthesis gas production plus utilization.