Spirit In Action

Change IS coming. WE can make it GOOD.

Leave a comment

Geo-engineering ‘could mean more heat’ | Climate News Network

I just wonder how utterly lost someone has to be to propose “artificial trees”??

We have everything we need to turn around climate change now except a planet not run by greedmonkeys.

In 1990 we had less than 2% of world forests left. Clearcutting has accelerated since then.

Why not plant REAL TREES?????

Why not use proper grazing, and hundreds of other simple, natural, direct solutions instead of ridiculous pie in th sky (or chemicals in the sky!) Expensive boondoggles?

Why in short not listen to and learn from Mother Nature instead of trying to find more ways to “conquer and control” Her?

Isn’t it obvious YET that hubris is a fault not an asset?

Geo-engineering ‘could mean more heat’

February 19, 2014 in Adaptation,Forecasting, Geoengineering,Technology, Temperature Increase


Another way to cooling: Removing trees from snowy slopes would increase reflectivity Image: Thomas Maier via Wikimedia Commons

Another way to cooling: Removing trees from snowy slopes would increase reflectivity
Image: Thomas Maier via Wikimedia Commons

By Tim Radford

Finding a technology that would let us counteract the effects of climate change is a cherished dream. But if there is a cure, it could be worse than the disease, scientists say.

LONDON, 19 February – The geo-engineers just cannot win, it seems. First, scientists demonstrated that ambitious plans to cool the planet by dimming solar radiation could have unintended and unwelcome consequences. And now they have shown something even more alarming: any programme to block the sunlight could precipitate even more dramatic global warming once it stopped, according to Environmental Research Letters.

Geo-engineering as a fallback strategy has been on the climate science agenda for decades. Almost all climate researchers argue, and have argued for 30 years, that the most effective response to global warming and the threat of climate change is a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuel, everywhere on the planet.

Although many governments have agreed, and have even introduced attempts to control greenhouse gas emissions, levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases keep rising.

So researchers have suggested other possible solutions: “artificial trees” to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide; the fertilisation of the oceans to accelerate algal photosynthesis; and even the injection of sulphate particles into the stratosphere to block the incoming sunlight. Such things happen naturally, during occasional violent volcanic eruptions, and global cooling has been observed to follow.

This last deliberate technological response might create other kinds of unwelcome climate change, among which would be an alarming change in rainfall patterns, other scientists have argued.

But now Kelly McCusker of the University of Washington in the US and colleagues have proposed yet another reason for limiting discharges into the upper atmosphere. Whatever benefits might follow the technique known as solar radiation management or SRM would be wiped out once the management stopped.

Worse when you stop

Quite simply the technology could ultimately make climate change more dramatic and global warming more alarming. If solar radiation management techniques were applied for a few decades and then halted, global temperature increases would more than double. The consequential heat would be worse than that expected if the sun-block had never been applied at all.

(Read the rest of this article at the link below-

Leave a comment

Unusually cold spring in Europe and the Southeast U.S. due to the Arctic Oscillation | Weather Underground

For those still wondering why when it is snowing in May where they live we can call it “Global Warming”, this post may help make things much clearer.

The snow in unusual locations in May comes in tandem with things like roadways and railroads in the Arctic and Tibet buckling and crumbling due to loss of permafrost (melting of long term frozen ground on which they were built). So even tho it is unusually cold in some places,at some times, it is still warmer over the planet as a whole.

Dr. Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog

Unusually cold spring in Europe and the Southeast U.S. due to the Arctic Oscillation

Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:52 PM GMT on April 25, 2013 +39

During March 2013, residents of Europe and the Southeast U.S. must have wondered what happened to global warming. Repeated bitter blasts of bitter cold air invaded from the Arctic, bringing one of the coldest and snowiest Marches on record for much of northern Europe. In the U.K., only one March since 1910 was colder (1962), and parts of Eastern Europe had their coldest March since 1952. A series of exceptional snowstorms struck many European locations, including the remarkable blizzard of March 11 – 12, which dumped up to 25 cm (10) of snow on the Channel Islands of Guernsey and Jersey in the U.K., and in the northern French provinces of Manche and Calvados. The entire Southeast U.S. experienced a top-ten coldest March on record, with several states experiencing a colder month than in January 2013. Despite all these remarkable cold weather events, global temperatures during March 2013 were the 9th warmest since 1880, said NASA. How, then, did such cold extremes occur in a month that was in the top 8% of warmest Marches in Earth’s recorded history? The answer lies in the behavior of the jet stream. This band of strong high-altitude winds marks the boundary between cold, polar air and warm, subtropical air. The jet stream, on average, blows west to east. But there are always large ripples in the jet, called planetary waves (or Rossby waves.) In the Northern Hemisphere, cold air from the polar regions spills southward into the U-shaped troughs of these ripples, and warm air is drawn northwards into the upside-down U-shaped ridges. If these ripples attain unusually high amplitude, a large amount of cold polar air will spill southwards into the mid-latitudes, causing unusual cold extremes. This was the case in Europe and the Eastern U.S. in March 2013. These cold extremes were offset by unusually warm conditions where the jet stream bulged northwards–over the Atlantic, the Western U.S., and in China during March 2013. In fact, the amplitude of the ripples in the jet stream reached their most extreme value ever recorded in any March during 2013, as measured by an index called the Arctic Oscillation (AO).

Figure 1. The monthly Arctic Oscillation (AO) index from 1950 – March 2013 shows that three of the six most extreme negative cases have occurred since 2009. Note that all of the six most negative AO indices on record were associated with historic cold waves and blizzards over Europe or the Eastern U.S. Image created using data from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center.

Measuring the jet stream’s contortions: the Arctic Oscillation (AO)
One measure of how extreme the ripples in the jet stream are is by measuring the difference in pressure between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High. An index based in this pressure difference is called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). When this index is strongly negative, it means that the pressure difference between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High is low. This results in a weaker jet stream, allowing it to take large, meandering loops. These loops allow cold air to spill far to the south from the Arctic into the mid-latitudes. A more general index that looks at pressure patterns over the entire Arctic, not just the North Atlantic, is called the Arctic Oscillation (AO). The AO and NAO are closely related about 90% of the time. According to a 2010 paper by L’Heureux et al., a strongly negative AO pattern that allows cold air to spill southwards into the mid-latitudes does nothing to the average temperature of the planet. Fluctuations in the jet stream as measured by the AO simply act to redistribute heat. It’s kind of like turning off your refrigerator and leaving the refrigerator door open–the cold air from the refrigerator spills out into the room, but is replaced inside the refrigerator by warm room air. No net change in heat occurs. During March 2013, the AO index hit -3.2. Not only was this the most extreme negative March value of the AO since record keeping began in 1950, it was also the sixth lowest AO index ever measured. It was also the first time the AO index had been that extremely negative in a non-winter month (because the circulation patterns are stronger in the winter, we tend to see more extreme values of the AO index in December, January, and February.) This unusual contortion of the jet stream in March 2013 allowed Europe to have exceptional cold weather in a month when the global average temperature was among the warmest 8% of Marches on record. Why did the AO index get so extreme in March 2013? Part of the blame goes to the sudden stratospheric warming event that began in January (wunderblogger Lee Grenci has a detailed post on this event.) Sudden stratospheric warming events tend to push the atmosphere into a more negative AO configuration. Another major factor was the very active Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO), a pattern of increased thunderstorm activity near the Equator that moves around the globe in 30 – 60 days. When the area of increased thunderstorms associated with the MJO is located in the Pacific Ocean, as occurred during much of March 2013, this tends to create negative AO conditions. Finally, wintertime Arctic sea ice loss has been tied to more negative AO patterns, and sea ice was well blow average again during March.

Figure 2. The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is a pattern of varying pressure and winds over the Northern Hemisphere that can strongly influence mid-latitude weather patterns. When the AO is in its positive phase, jet stream winds are strong and the jet stream tends to blow mostly west to east, with low-amplitude waves (troughs and ridges.) Since the jet stream marks the boundary between cold Arctic air to the north and warm subtropical air to the south, cold air stays bottled up in the Arctic. When the AO is in its negative phase, the winds of the jet stream slow down, allowing the jet to take on more wavy pattern with high-amplitude troughs and ridges. High amplitude troughs typically set up over the Eastern U.S. and Western Europe during negative AO episodes, allowing cold air to spill southwards in those regions and create unusally cold weather.

Are jet stream patterns getting more extreme?
We’ve had some wildly variable jet stream patterns in recent years in the Northern Hemisphere. Just last year, we had a strongly positive AO in March, when our ridiculous “Summer in March” heat wave brought the warmest March on record to the U.S. The first day of spring in Chicago, IL on March 20, 2013 had a high temperature of just 25°F–a 60 degree difference from last year’s high of 85°F on March 20! During the past five years, we’ve set new monthly records for extreme negative AO index for six of the twelve months of the year:

-4.3: February 2010
-3.4: December 2009
-3.2: March 2013
-1.5: October 2009, 2012
-1.4: June 2009
-1.4: July 2009

Note that four of these months with an extremely negative AO occurred in one year–2009. This unusual event was “unprecedented in the 60-year record”, according to L’Heureux et al. (2010.) Despite the unusually large negative AO in 2009, the authors found that the AO index between 1950 – 2009 had actually trended to be more positive, in both the winter and annual mean. This is in agreement with what many climate models predict: the AO index should get increasingly positive, due to increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, since this tends to make the stratosphere cool and increase the strength of high altitude winds over the Arctic. However, a number of papers have been published since 2009 theorizing that the record loss of Arctic sea ice in recent years may be significantly altering Northern Hemisphere jet stream patterns (I list eleven of these papers below.) Many of these studies show a link between Arctic sea ice loss and an increasingly negative AO and NAO index in winter. Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers has authored several of these papers, and wrote a very readable explanation of the theory linking Arctic sea ice loss to extreme weather in the mid-latitudes for our Earth Day 2013 microsite. Her post was called, “The Changing Face of Mother Nature.” The most recent technical paper connecting Arctic sea ice loss to extreme weather was a March 2013 paper by Tang et al., “Cold winter extremes in northern continents linked to Arctic sea ice loss”. The paper argued that unusual jet stream contortions in winter have become increasingly common in recent years. The scientists found a mathematical relationship between wintertime Arctic sea ice loss and the increase in unusual jet stream patterns capable of bringing cold, snowy weather to the Eastern U.S., Western Europe, and East Asia, typical of what one sees during a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation. They theorized that sea ice loss in the Arctic promotes more evaporation, resulting in earlier snowfall in Siberia and other Arctic lands. The earlier snow insulates the soil, allowing the land to cool more rapidly. This results in a southwards shift of the jet stream and builds higher atmospheric pressures farther to the south, which increases the odds of cold spells and blocking high pressure systems that can cause extended periods of unusually cold and snowy weather in the mid-latitudes. The research linking climate change impacts in the Arctic to more extreme jet stream patterns is still very new, and we need several more years of data and additional research before we can be confident that this is occurring. But if the new research is correct, the crazy winter weather we’ve been seeing since 2009 may be the new normal in a world with rapid warming occurring in the Arctic.

Related posts
“The Changing Face of Mother Nature” by Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers, April 22, 2013.
Why was the start to spring 2013 so cold? by the UK Met Office, April 2013.
Extreme jet stream causing record warmth in the east, record cold in the west (January 2013)
Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns (April 2012)
Our extreme weather: Arctic changes to blame? (December 2011)
Florida shivers; Hot Arctic-Cold Continents pattern is back (December 2010)
Jet stream moved northwards 270 miles in 22 years; climate change to blame? (June 2008)
Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic by Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University (March 2012)
From Heat Wave to Snowstorms, March Goes to Extremes by Andrew Freedman of Climate Central (March 2013)

L’Heureux, M., A. Butler, B. Jha, A. Kumar, and W. Wang (2010), Unusual extremes in the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation during 2009, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L10704, doi:10.1029/2010GL043338.

Papers published since 2009 that link Arctic sea ice loss to an increase in negative AO or NAO conditions
Deser, C., R. Tomas, M. Alexander, and D. Lawrence (2010), “The seasonal atmospheric response to projected Arctic sea ice loss in the late 21st century,” J. Clim., 23, 333351, doi:10.1175/2009JCLI3053.1.

Francis, J.A., and S.J. Vavrus (2012), “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes,” Geophysical Research Letters, 21 February, 2012.

Francis, J. A., W. Chan, D. J. Leathers, J. R. Miller, and D. E. Veron, 2009, “Winter northern hemisphere weather patterns remember summer Arctic sea-ice extent,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L07503, doi:10.1029/2009GL037274.

Honda, M., J. Inoue, and S. Yamane, 2009, “Influence of low Arctic sea-ice minima on anomalously cold Eurasian winters,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L08707, doi:10.1029/2008GL037079.

Jaiser, R., K. Dethloff, D. Handorf, A. Rinke, J. Cohen (2012), “Impact of sea ice cover changes on the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric winter circulation”, Tellus A 2012, 64, 11595, DOI: 10.3402/tellusa.v64i0.11595

Liu et al. (2012), “Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall”, Proc. Natl. Academy of Sciences, Published online before print February 27, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114910109

Overland, J. E., and M. Wang, 2010, “Large-scale atmospheric circulation changes associated with the recent loss of Arctic sea ice,” Tellus, 62A, 1.9.

Petoukhov, V., and V. Semenov, 2010, “A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents,” J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., ISSN 0148-0227.

Seager, R., Y. Kushnir, J. Nakamura, M. Ting, and N. Naik (2010), “Northern Hemisphere winter snow anomalies: ENSO, NAO and the winter of 2009/10,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L14703, doi:10.1029/2010GL043830.

Seierstad, I. A., and J. Bader (2009), “Impact of a projected future Arctic Sea Ice reduction on extratropical storminess and the NAO,” Clim. Dyn., 33, 937-943, doi:10.1007/s00382-008-0463-x.

Tang et al., “Cold winter extremes in northern continents linked to Arctic sea ice loss,” Environ. Res. Lett. 8 014036 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014036

Jeff Masters


Leave a comment

BREAKING-Study shows 97.1% of Climate Scientists AGREE Global Warming is REAL and human caused

New study published today shows what us weather nerds have known for about 2 decades-the science is plain and clear on this issue and people are only confused about it because there is a concerted (and VERY well funded by the fossil fuel industry!) effort to obfuscate the truth and confuse people-in other words to LIE to us as usual.

Any time huge corporations profit handsomely from the status quo, you can be sure efforts to discredit science that calls for changing the status quo are very likely coming from the corporate/cabal/1% folks.

One reason discernment is so important, is that disinfo is so widespread both in the mainstream AND the alternative news sources.

Imho it is high time to release the many suppressed technologies that can remove all need for fossil fuels AND help us decentralize and prevent anyone from gaining power over others by controlling energy. Also, to properly fund research and development of things like the solar breakthrough I reblogged a report on the other day. We no longer NEED fossil fuels-only the cabal need them to keep control of us!

Study: 97% Agreement on Manmade Global Warming

By Angela Fritz

Published: 7:36 PM GMT on May 16, 2013

The scientific agreement that climate change is happening, and that it’s caused by human activity, is significant and growing, according to a new study published Thursday. The research, which is the most comprehensive analysis of climate research to date, found that 97.1% of the studies published between 1991 to 2011 that expressed a position on manmade climate change agreed that it was happening, and that it was due to human activity.

The study looked at peer reviewed research that mentioned climate change or global warming. Peer review is the way that scientific journals approve research papers that are submitted. In peer review, group of scientists that weren’t involved in the study, but who are experts in the field, look at the research being submitted and have approved that it meets scientific process standards, and the standards of that journal.

In 2011, 521 of those peer reviewed papers agreed that climate change is real, and that human activity is the cause. Nine papers in 2011 disagreed.

John Cook, founder of skepticalscience.com and the lead author on the study, said the motivation for the analysis was the importance of scientific consensus in shaping public opinion, and therefore policy. “When people understand that climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, they’re more likely to support climate policy,” Cook said. “But when the public are asked how many climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, the average answer is around 50%.”

This “consensus gap” is what Cook and the research team is trying to close. “Raising awareness of the scientific consensus is a key step towards meaningful climate action,” Cook said.

This study is not the first to examine the overwhelming agreement among climate scientists. Surveys of actively publishing climate scientists as well as analyses of climate change papers have shown similar results.

In 2004 Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, published what many scientists consider the seminal study on climate change consensus. She also co-authored the book Merchants of Doubt, which identifies and examines the similarities between today’s climate change conversation and previous controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer.

Oreskes believes that the public isn’t aware of the consensus because of deliberate efforts to cause confusion. “There has been a systematic attempt to create the impression that scientists did not have a consensus, as part of a broader strategy to prevent federal government action,” Oreskes said. “The public have been confused because people have been trying to confuse us.”

The study published Thursday is the first to take so many papers and authors into account. Doing a search on the popular science article website Web of Science for “climate change” or “global warming” produces over 12,000 results. Of these, 4,014 papers were identified to state a position on climate change. Among those, 3,896, or 97.1% endorsed the consensus that climate change was happening and that it was caused by human activity.

In an interesting result, Cook and his team found that over time, scientists tend to express a position on climate change less and less in their research papers. This is likely a result of consensus — that if a scientific conclusion has been reached, there’s no need to continue to state that conclusion in new research. “Scientists tend to take the consensus for granted,” says Cook, “perhaps not realizing that the public still think it’s a 50:50 debate.”


Leave a comment

Keep rainforests – they drive the planet’s winds – environment – 31 January 2013 – New Scientist

Keep rainforests – they drive the planet's winds – environment – 31 January 2013 – New Scientist.

(Excerpt below)
What if, instead, the winds that drive atmospheric circulation are mainly created by the condensation of moisture? Much of this occurs over rainforests as water evaporates or is transpired from the trees. The physicists and foresters behind this controversial idea say that if we chop down the forests, we will lose the winds – and the rains they bring with them.

The physical process itself is not in dispute. Whenever water vapour condenses to form droplets, its volume is reduced, lowering the pressure. Air moves in, creating wind.

Climate scientists have always regarded this as a trivial effect. Criticism has been heaped on the theory since it was first aired four years ago. “This is not a mysterious effect. It is small and included in some atmospheric models,” says Isaac Held of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Princeton, New Jersey.

But physicist Anastassia Makarieva of St Petersburg University in Russia says the pressure gradients it would create “have never received a theoretical investigation”. Her calculations suggest that the condensation of billions of litres of water above giant forests produces a giant effect (Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, doi.org/kbx).

Co-author Douglas Sheil at Southern Cross University in Lismore, Australia, says critics have yet to explain why they think Makarieva is wrong. Until they do, he said, “this looks like a powerful mechanism that governs weather patterns round the world”.

Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, an author of the standard textbook Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, is encouraging. “The process they describe is physically correct,” she said. “The main question is its relative magnitude compared with other processes.” She thinks it could explain why climate models do not get monsoons and hurricanes right.

Nobody doubts that forests recycle rain through evaporation and transpiration. But this is the first suggestion that this recycling process also whips up the winds that suck moist ocean air across continents.

The implications are huge. “In standard theories, if we lose forests the rainfall in the continental interiors generally declines by 10 to 30 per cent. In our theory, it is likely to decline by 90 per cent or more,” says Sheil.

But it is not all bad news. If lost forests are replanted, the theory suggests, then the winds they generate could return rain to even the most arid lands. After all, the Sahara was lush swampland 6000 years ago.

Leave a comment

Bill McKibben’s Math: Climate Change Hits Home (in a 22-City Tour) by Phil Aroneanu — YES! Magazine

Bill McKibben’s Math: Climate Change Hits Home (in a 22-City Tour) by Phil Aroneanu — YES! Magazine.

Bill McKibben’s Math: Climate Change Hits Home (in a 22-City Tour)
It shouldn’t take a hurricane to blow open the debate about climate change. But Sandy might help 350.org prove what’s at stake in a nationwide campaign to divest university endowments from the fossil fuel industry.
Document Actions

Email Email
Print Print
Feed Feed
Share Share

by Phil Aroneanu
posted Nov 05, 2012

Flooded Bridge photo by Barry Yanowitz

Photo by Barry Yanowitz.

Phil Aroneanu is an organizer with 350.org

For two hours last Monday night, New York City got pummeled by Hurricane Sandy, along with much of the New Jersey and Connecticut coast. The windows started bowing and rattling with every gust, and rain pelted the glass sideways. Nobody was on the streets.

Sitting in our third-floor apartment in Brooklyn, my wife and I pretended to read our books and traded nervous looks each time a gust shook the hatch that leads up to our roof. I’d been following the reports closely, so I knew we weren’t in danger of getting flooded. But like many people around the world, I was glued to the white glow of my smartphone as my Twitter feed flooded with images of rising waters on the Jersey shore and in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Sitting in my apartment last week, it felt like all the work I had done over the past few years had come to naught—we’d failed in our mission of, and this was the beginning of the end.

That night, I finally understood what many of my friends in Indonesia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and countless other places on the planet must feel each time a massive typhoon or record flooding hits. Climate change finally hit home for me: I was experiencing it in my own house and on my own skin.

For the first time since 2009, when the United States Senate voted down an ill-fated climate bill, politicians seem to be connecting the dots between extreme weather and climate change. New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo broke the election-year silence around the issue in a press conference just 36 hours after the storm passed, and Mayor Bloomberg trumpeted President Obama’s climate credentials in an endorsement the next day.

Times Square photo by 350.org

As Hurricane Sandy barrels down on the East Coast, a group of activists with 350.org unfurls a giant parachute banner.

Photo courtesy of 350.org.

“Climate change is a reality,” Cuomo said. “Extreme weather is a reality. It is a reality that we are vulnerable.”

It shouldn’t take a hurricane to blow open the debate about climate change. But sometimes—especially in politics—reality needs to bust in at gale force to push back the millions of dollars that fossil fuel companies have spent in a 20-year effort to strongarm, threaten, and lobby politicians to stay quiet about climate.

And yet, sitting in my apartment last week, I wasn’t thinking about climate science or politics. I was emotional: tired, raw, and defeated. It felt like all the work I had done with my colleagues at 350.org over the past few years had come to naught—we’d failed in our mission of warning the globe about climate catastrophe, and this was the beginning of the end. How could we possibly fight the fossil fuel companies who insist on dumping carbon into the atmosphere, blocking progress on clean energy, and warming the planet, when we’re busy recovering from the second “once-in-a-lifetime” storm in just two years?

As I watched people in my neighborhood pick themselves up, clear trash and branches off the sidewalks in front of their houses, and get back to work, my fatigue gave way to the fighting spirit that New Yorkers showed after 9/11—I was angry. Righteously angry.

It’s that fighting spirit that we’re bringing to Do the Math, 350.org’s 22-city tour that connects the dots between climate change, politics, and the fossil fuel industry.

taxicabs hurricane sandy by Dave S-555.jpg
What Climate-Driven Hurricane Sandy Teaches about Cooperation
It’s 3 a.m. and the wind’s howling. Do you know your neighbors?

In an effort to silence action on climate change, coal, oil, and gas companies have dumped more than $153 million into the 2012 presidential election alone. That’s a cynical move, as these companies already possess reserves of oil, gas, and coal that, if burned, would release five times the amount of carbon that the planet’s atmosphere can safely hold. It’s clear that the fossil fuel industry has become a rogue force—its business model is predicated on burning up the planet, and it consistently frustrates progress on clean energy.

In each of the 22 cities, 350.org and a whole crew of partners will kick off a campaign to divest University endowments from any stocks, bonds, and funds that include fossil fuel companies. It will echo the divestment effort of the 1980s that brought South Africa’s apartheid government to its knees. Student activists across the country are already sounding the alarm on fossil fuel investments, making the case that a Sandy-like future is no future at all. Folks from East Texas to the Pacific Northwest to New England are leaning into local and regional fossil fuel infrastructure campaigns, fighting tar sands pipelines and coal ports.

Fossil fuel companies have already increased the world’s temperature by one degree, and Hurricane Sandy, along with the wildfires, droughts, record heat, and floods of 2012, is the result. It’s time to fight back.

Phil Aroneanu wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. In, 2007 he co-founded the Step It Up campaign with a small group of students and author/activist Bill McKibben. In 2008, the group built on the success of Step It Up to launch the innovative 350.org. Phil currently serves as campaign director of 350.org.