[TheClimate.Vote] August 13, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News

[Richard Pauli]

/August 13 , 2017

/*(2:11 video) The Shum Show: The Path Ahead 
<https://youtu.be/PBBa1dDJCyE>*/
/As the last episode in the Shum Show series, Climate Central's Greta 
Shum gives a "shummary" of what climate change will bring in the future. 
Hurricane season is quickly approaching, new technologies are around the 
corner, and environmental changes awaken new appreciation for the world 
around us./
/https://youtu.be/PBBa1dDJCyE/

/ *Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet 
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica>*
This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt 
more ice in region affected by climate change
Scientists have uncovered the largest volcanic region on Earth – two 
kilometres below the surface of the vast ice sheet that covers west 
Antarctica.
The project, by Edinburgh University researchers, has revealed almost 
100 volcanoes – with the highest as tall as the Eiger, which stands at 
almost 4,000 metres in Switzerland.
Geologists say this huge region is likely to dwarf that of east Africa's 
volcanic ridge, currently rated the densest concentration of volcanoes 
in the world.
"The most volcanism that is going in the world at present is in regions 
that have only recently lost their glacier covering – after the end of 
the last ice age. These places include Iceland and Alaska.
"Theory suggests that this is occurring because, without ice sheets on 
top of them, there is a release of pressure on the regions' volcanoes 
and they become more active."
And this could happen in west Antarctica, where significant warming in 
the region caused by climate change has begun to affect its ice sheets. 
If they are reduced significantly, this could release pressure on the 
volcanoes that lie below and lead to eruptions that could further 
destabilise the ice sheets and enhance sea level rises that are already 
affecting our oceans.
"It is something we will have to watch closely," Bingham said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica


*Here's What Trump's Team Has Gotten Wrong About Climate Change So Far 
<https://weather.com/science/environment/news/trump-team-climate-change-global-warming>*
The Weather Channel ByPam Wright
Trump and other officials share a skepticism about climate change and 
try to suppress or debunk the consensus of scientists that climate 
change is real and human-caused.
The science overwhelmingly concludes that Earth is warming and will 
continue to do so, as shown in two new federal reports this week.
*THE FACTS:* The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change <http://www.ipcc.ch/>says scientific evidence for warming of the 
climate system is unequivocal.
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show 
that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: 
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to 
human activities,"according to NASA 
<https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/>. "In addition, most of 
the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public 
statements endorsing this position."
These include scientists from Pruitt's own agency.
Scientists from 16 professional groups led by the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science have sent a letter to Pruitt 
<http://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/policy/letters/2017/1707-EPA_JointLetter.pdf>reminding 
him that there already are "debates that happen on a regular basis in 
every scientific discipline."
"Indeed, science is a multi-dimensional, competitive 'red team/blue 
team' process whereby scientists and scientific teams are constantly 
challenging one another's findings for robustness," the letter read. 
"The current scientific understanding of climate change is based on 
decades of such work, along with overarching, carefully evaluated 
assessments within the United States and internationally."
*THE FACTS:* There is little evidence upon which Pruitt can base this 
claim. Pruitt's own agency, the EPA,says 
<https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gases>: "Greenhouse 
gases from human activities are the most significant driver of observed 
climate change since the mid-20^th  century" and "Carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) 
is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human 
activities,"according to the EPA's website 
<https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases>.*THE 
FACTS:* The NCA report says "it is extremely likely that human influence 
has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th 
century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing 
alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational 
evidence."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
<http://www.ipcc.ch/>says confidence was "very high" that nearly 
three-quarters of the energy that was needed to warm the planet from 
pre-Industrial age levels come from carbon dioxide released into the 
atmosphere by human activities.
"The global annual average atmospheric CO2 concentration was 402.9 parts 
per million (ppm), which surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in the 
modern atmospheric measurement record and in ice core records dating 
back as far as 800,000 years. This was 3.5 ppm more than 2015, and it 
was the largest annual increase observed in the 58-year record."
*THE FACTS:* A slew of agencies, including NASA 
<https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/> , the EPA, 
<https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators> the National 
<http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/> Academy 
of Sciences, along with many other scientific organizations 
<https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/>, 
say that is false. The American Institute of Physics created atimeline 
<https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm>that shows that the first 
inklings of global warming date back to 1896.
*THE FACTS:*Pruittmisquoted Stephens 
<https://thinkprogress.org/pruitt-cites-bret-stephens-d7d3e94dc952/>and failed 
to mention that Stephens said global warming is "indisputable."
While a 0.85 degree Celsius may seem modest, studies 
<http://climate-institute.webstarts.com/uploads/Natural_systems_climate_change_Field_Nature_2013.pdf> indicate 
that it is unprecedented in the history of the earth. On a global scale 
that "modest" amount of warming has resulted in extreme weather such as 
heat waves and giant downpours, melting glaciers, disappearing snow 
cover, shrinking sea ice, rising seas and increasing human health 
issues, according to the draft CNA report.
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/trump-team-climate-change-global-warming


*Anger over 'untrue' climate change claims 
<http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40899188>*
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
Scientists have responded furiously to claims about climate change made 
in a live BBC radio interview.
Experts told BBC News that the assertions made by former Chancellor 
Nigel Lawson on Radio 4's Today programme were simply untrue.
Lord Lawson had claimed that global temperatures had "slightly declined" 
over the past 10 years.
However, scientists working in the field said the records showed the 
complete opposite to be the case.
BBC Radio 4's Today programme defended its decision to interview Lord 
Lawson on Thursday morning in a segment on climate change. The BBC 
argued that it had a duty to inform listeners about all sides of a debate.
Fellow physicist and broadcaster Jim al-Khalili tweeted: "For 
@BBCr4today to bring on Lord Lawson 'in the name of balance' on climate 
change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you."
He added: "There should be NO debate anymore about climate change. We 
(the world minus Trump/Lawson et al) have moved on."
In a statement, the BBC said: "The BBC's role is to hear different views 
so listeners are informed about all sides of debate and we are required 
to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40899188

*
Analyzing winter storm risk and resilience in a changing climate 
<https://phys.org/news/2017-08-winter-storm-resilience-climate.html#jCp>*
August 9, 2017 by Adrienne Kenyon
The northeastern United States, marked by dense population centers and 
extensive infrastructure, is at particular risk for both physical and 
economic effects of climate hazards, including sea level rise and 
extreme weather events. While we tend to think of extreme weather 
largely in terms of tropical cyclones like Superstorm Sandy, the 
Northeast is also prone to extratropical cyclones – winter storms – the 
effects of which are understudied despite costing millions of dollars in 
damages every year and having the potential for increased risks as the 
climate changes. "The costs of a winter storm are often less severe than 
those of a hurricane, but they occur more frequently and over time their 
compounding impacts can result in high damages because you'll see 
several events through the season," explains Cari Shimkus, program 
manager at the Earth Institute's Undergraduate Program in Sustainable 
Development and lead author of a new paper examining hazards and damages 
resulting from winter storms in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
The paper, published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 
analyzes storms from 2001 – 2014, evaluating storm intensity based on 
four metrics – wind, precipitation, storm tide and snow depth – to 
categorize storms by hazard type and devise a list of the 20 strongest 
storms during that period. Correlating those with available data on 
financial losses caused by impacts such as flooding, wind damage and 
snow inundation, the authors aim to inform how communities can better 
assess their risks, prepare for winter storms and enhance their 
resiliency as the effects of climate change exacerbate hazards.
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-winter-storm-resilience-climate.html#jCp

*
Zack Labe (@ZLabe)
Intense (and quite cold) #Arctic cyclone down to 974 hPa this morning
[from @arcticio at arctic.io] pic.twitter.com/iKv8XuHqDX
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=325.64,84.68,474


The planet's worst-case climate scenario: 'If not hell then a place with 
a similar temperature' 
<http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-worst-case-scenario-bill-mckibben-2017-8>*
  Kevin Loria
- If we don't cut greenhouse gas emissions, we'll see more deadly heat 
waves, acidic oceans, and rising seas.
- At this point, the planet will warm no matter what - but we can still 
prevent it from getting too bad.
- Environmentalist and author Bill McKibben told Business Insider that 
without intervention, the world would be: "If not hell, then a place 
with a similar temperature."
The world is almost certainly going to warm past what's frequently 
considered a critical tipping point.
A recent study pointed out 
<http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-earth-two-degrees-warming-2100-new-studies-2017-7> 
that we have just a 5% chance of keeping the planet from warming more 
than 2 degrees Celsius, the upper limit the Paris Agreement was designed 
to avoid. Beyond that threshold, many researchers say the effects of 
climate change - like rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and 
intense storms - will become significantly more concerning.
But how bad could it really get? What would the planet look like if we 
don't cut emissions and instead keep burning fossil fuels at the rate we 
are now?
Business Insider recently asked author and environmentalist Bill 
McKibben that question, and his description of what Earth would look 
like was sobering.
"If not hell, then a place with a similar temperature," he said. "We 
have in the Earth's geological record some sense of what happens when 
you run carbon levels up to the levels we're running them now - it gets 
a lot hotter."
Extreme as that might sound, there's significant evidence that we're 
feeling the effects of climate change already. Unchecked, the planet 
will get far hotter by 2100 - a time that many children alive today will 
see.
"Huge swaths of the world will be living in places that by the end of 
the century will have heat waves so deep that people won't be able to 
deal with them, you have sea level rising dramatically, to the point 
that most of the world's cities are drowning, the ocean turning into a 
hot, sour, breathless soup as it acidifies and warms," McKibben said.
None of that is exaggeration. A recent study in the journal Nature 
Climate Change found that 30% of the world is already exposed to heat 
intense enough to kill people for 20 or more days each year. That 
temperature is defined using a heat index that takes into account 
temperature and humidity; above 104 degrees Farenheit (40 degrees C ), 
organs swell and cells start to break down.
Heat waves are the deadliest weather events most years , more so than 
hurricanes or tornadoes. In 2010, more than 10,000 people did in a 
Moscow heat wave. In 2003, some estimates say a European summer heat 
wave killed up to 70,000.
Even if we drastically cut emissions by 2100, the world will continue to 
warm due to the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted. That 
would cause the percentage of the world exposed to deadly heat for 20 or 
more days to rise to 48%. Under a scenario with zero emissions 
reductions from today, researchers estimate that 74% of the world will 
be exposed to deadly heat by the end of the century.
Our oceans are at risk, too. A draft of an upcoming US government report 
on climate change projects that even if emissions are cut to hit zero by 
2080, we'll still see between one and four feet of sea level rise by 
2100. Without the cuts, it suggests that an eight-foot rise can't be 
ruled out. That report also suggests that oceans are becoming more 
acidic faster than they have at any point in the last 66 million years. 
Increased acidity can devastate marine life and coral reefs, which cover 
less than 2% of the ocean floor but are relied upon by about 25% of 
marine species - including many fish that are key food sources for humans.
The key takeaway here is not that the world is doomed, however. It's 
that if we don't dramatically cut emissions soon, we'll put the planet 
on course to be a much less pleasant place.
In some ways, progress towards emissions reductions is already underway. 
Market trends are increasing use of renewable energy sources, political 
movements are pushing leaders to enact new types of policies, and legal 
challenges to government inaction on climate are popping up around the 
world. The question is whether we'll act fast enough to stave off the 
most dire consequences of greenhouse gas emissions.
"In order to catch up with the physics of climate change, we have to go 
at an exponential rate," McKibben said. "It's not as if this was a 
static problem. If we don't get to it very soon, we'll never get to it."
http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-worst-case-scenario-bill-mckibben-2017-8


*The year Trump was elected was so hot, it was one-in-a-million 
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/11/the-year-trump-was-elected-was-so-hot-it-was-1-in-a-million>*
The odds of 2014, 2015, and 2016 naturally being as hot as they were are 
about the same as the odds you'll be struck by lightning this year
2014, 2015, and 2016 each broke the global temperature record. A new 
study led by climate scientist Michael Mann just published in 
Geophysical Research Letters used climate model simulations to examine 
the odds that these records would have been set in a world with and 
without human-caused global warming. In model simulations without a 
human climate influence, the authors concluded:
There's a one-in-a-million chance that 2014, 2015, and 2016 would each 
have been as hot as they were if only natural factors were at play.
There's a one-in-10,000 chance that 2014, 2015, and 2016 would all have 
been record-breaking hot years.
There's a less than 0.5% chance of three consecutive record-breaking 
years happening at any time since 2000.
There's a 0.1%–0.2% chance of 2016 being the hottest on record.
To put those numbers in perspective, you have about a one-in-3,000 
(0.03%) chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime. You have 
about as much chance of being struck by lightning this year as 2014, 
2015, and 2016 each being as hot as they were due solely to natural 
effects. That means denying human-caused global warming is like planning 
to be struck by lightning three years in a row. Perhaps a tinfoil hat 
will help.
On the other hand, in model simulations accounting for human-caused 
global warming, the odds of these events goes up substantially:
There's a 1–3% chance that 2014, 2015, and 2016 would each have been 
record-breaking hot years.
There's a 6–12% chance that 2014, 2015, and 2016 would be the three 
hottest years on record.
There's a 30–50% chance of three consecutive record-breaking years 
happening at any time since 2000.
There's a 20–27% chance of 2016 being the hottest on record.
It's unusual to have three consecutive record-breaking years even with 
the aid of global warming, but without the human climate influence, it 
simply wouldn't happen....
It's understandable that climate scientists would worry about the 
possibility that the Trump administration would censor their findings. 
Not only has the administration denied this politically-inconvenient 
science, but the Republican Party has a history of censoring climate 
science research. That's what the George W Bush administration did just 
a decade ago. And the Trump administration has been telling government 
scientists not to use the phrase "climate change" and deleting climate 
science information from government websites.
That's the problem we now face. It's not one that physical scientists 
can solve – at least not without the aid of social science research. 
We've had enough evidence telling us about the need to act on climate 
change for decades. More evidence won't convince people; we now have to 
figure out the best ways to communicate it, as climate scientists like 
Katharine Hayhoe are learning:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/11/the-year-trump-was-elected-was-so-hot-it-was-1-in-a-million
*(video) Climate Change: Faith and Fact - Katharine Hayhoe 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMJKkweZN6w>*
Moyers & Company
Published on Sep 12, 2014
Christian and climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe talks to Bill about 
ending the gridlock between politics, science and faith.
See more: http://bit.ly/XQxxzy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMJKkweZN6w


*This Day in Climate History August 13, 2009 
<http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125011380094927137> -  from D.R. 
Tucker*
  August 13, 2009: The Wall Street Journal reports that Thomas Crocker, 
the economist who helped to develop the concept of cap-and-trade, 
opposes his own concept as a means of tackling carbon pollution, and 
supports a federal carbon tax instead.
Cap-and-Trade's Unlikely Critics: Its Creators 
<http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125011380094927137>
Economists Behind Original Concept Question the System's Large-Scale 
Usefulness, and Recommend Emissions Taxes Instead
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB125011380094927137


/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
////You are encouraged to forward this email /

        . *** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
        carries no images which may originate from remote servers.
        Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
        sender.
        By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
        democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
        commercial purposes.
        To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject: 
        subscribe,  To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
        Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
        https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
        Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
        http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
        citizens and responsible governments of all levels.   List
        membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
        restricted to this mailing list.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20170813/fb70b58d/attachment.html>