[TheClimate.Vote] August 24, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu Aug 24 09:48:16 EDT 2017
/August 24, 2017/
*Why is climate change's 2 degrees Celsius of warming limit so important?*
<http://theconversation.com/why-is-climate-changes-2-degrees-celsius-of-warming-limit-so-important-82058>Perhaps
the most powerful aspect about the 2degreeC threshold is not its
scientific veracity, but its simplicity as an organizing principle.
The climate system is vast and has more dynamics, parameters and
variations in space and time than is possible to quickly and simply
convey. What the 2degreeC threshold lacks in nuance and depth, it more
than makes up as a goal that is understandable, measurable and may still
be achievable, although our actions will need to change quickly. Goals
and goal-setting are very powerful instruments in effecting change.
http://theconversation.com/why-is-climate-changes-2-degrees-celsius-of-warming-limit-so-important-82058
*Can Business Save the World from Climate Change?
<http://www.climatecentral.org/news/business-corporations-climate-change-21712>*
"We are still in." On June 5, 2017, with these four words a group of
U.S. businesses and investors with a combined annual revenue of $1.4
trillion sent a powerful message to the world: U.S. president Donald
Trump may have withdrawn from the Paris agreement on climate change four
days earlier, but corporate America was not following suit.
"We Are Still In" launched with more than 20 Fortune 500 companies on
board, including Google, Apple, Nike and Microsoft, as well as a host of
smaller companies.
We Mean Business is a global coalition of many of the same NGOs that
initiated We Are Still In — CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure
Project), The B Team, The Climate Group, and others — and the two
initiatives are closely connected. We Mean Business's role is to provide
a framework for corporate commitments on climate change and a platform
from which to make those commitments public.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/business-corporations-climate-change-21712
B.C. wildfires map 2017: Current location of wildfires around the province
*B.C. remains under a state of emergency as 138 wildfires continue to
burn across the province.
<http://globalnews.ca/news/3585284/b-c-wildfires-map-2017-current-location-of-wildfires-around-the-province/>*
This season is now B.C.'s worst fire season in history and it is far
from over.
Approximately 4,400 British Columbians remain out of their homes and
about 21,000 remain on evacuation alert.
In addition, the provincial state of emergency has now been extended
until Sept. 1.
*(Current Map) BC Wildfire Service | Active Wildfires
<http://governmentofbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a1e7b1ecb1514974a9ca00bdbfffa3b1>*
http://governmentofbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a1e7b1ecb1514974a9ca00bdbfffa3b1
Map shows historical comparison of B.C. wildfire seasons
<http://infotel.ca/newsitem/map-shows-historical-comparison-of-bc-wildfire-seasons/it45435>
Lightship Works, based out of Kamloops, has developed a map with
different layers, detailing the impacts of the 2017 wildfire season in
comparison to other major wildfire seasons like 1958, 1922, and 2003.
So far more than one-million hectares /(about 2.5 million acres or 3,800
square miles) /has been scorched in the province, compared to more than
861,000 hectares in 1958, the previous record year for the amount of
land burned.
The map shows the large sections
<https://emergency-maps.lightship.works/#/map/vHJGzBFIShqqPPRimUmS7Q/details>
that have been burned in the Interior this wildfire season, one of the
most notable blazes being the Elephant Hill fire near Ashcroft and the
Plateau fire in the Cariboo.
More than 670,000 hectares burned in 1922, and more than 233,000
hectares burned in 2003. In 2003, more than 2,400 fires burned across
the province and destroyed dozens of homes. In Barriere alone, 72 homes
were lost to wildfire.
http://infotel.ca/newsitem/map-shows-historical-comparison-of-bc-wildfire-seasons/it45435
*Alaskan towns at risk from rising seas sound alarm as Trump pulls
federal help
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/10/alaska-coastal-towns-sea-level-rise-climate-change>*
www.theguardian.com
Communities in danger of falling into the sea say assistance from
Washington has dried up: 'It feels like a complete abdication of
responsibility on climate change'
The US government's withdrawal from dealing with, or even acknowledging,
climate change may have provoked widespread opprobrium, but for Alaskan
communities at risk of toppling into the sea, the risks are rather more
personal.
The Trump administration has moved to dismantle climate adaptation
programs including the Denali Commission, an Anchorage-based agency that
is crafting a plan to safeguard or relocate dozens of towns at risk from
rising sea levels, storms and the winnowing away of sea ice.
Federal assistance for these towns has been ponderous but could now
grind to a halt, with even those working on the issue seemingly targeted
by the administration. In July, Joel Clement, an interior department
official who worked with Alaskan communities on climate adaptation,
claimed he had been moved to a completely unrelated position because of
the administration's ideological hostility to the issue.
"We were getting down to the brass tacks of relocation [of towns at
risk] and now work has just stopped," Clement told the Guardian. He has
lodged an official complaint over his reassignment.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/10/alaska-coastal-towns-sea-level-rise-climate-change
(video)***When permafrost isn't permanent.
<https://www.nytimes.com/video/climate/100000005342825/when-alaskas-permafrost-isnt-permanent.html?>*
In today's 360 video, travel to Alaska, where scientists are trying to
determine how much greenhouse gas could be released if rising
temperatures cause the permafrost to thaw.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/climate/100000005342825/when-alaskas-permafrost-isnt-permanent.html
*This is why when you talk about climate change, you can't ignore
agriculture
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/23/this-is-why-when-you-talk-about-climate-change-you-cant-ignore-agriculture/?utm_term=.bd73d1310dcf>*
By Chelsea Harvey August 23 at 10:25 AM
"We have known that extensive agricultural practices are responsible for
depleting soil carbon stocks, but the full extent of these carbon losses
has been elusive,"
The model suggested that agricultural changes are responsible for the
loss of a total of 133 petagrams, or 133 billion metric tons, of carbon
from the top six-foot-deep layer of soil all over the world. The most
intense losses per unit of land have been caused by the planting of
crops — however, more land worldwide is devoted to grazing livestock
than cropping. As a result, the study suggests that cropping and grazing
are responsible for roughly equal shares of global soil carbon losses.
Overall, the researchers suggest that with modified agricultural
practices — which could include everything from more efficient crop
rotation strategies to changes in the way land is plowed and tilled — we
could realistically regain anywhere from 8 billion to 28 billion tons of
the carbon that's been lost.
And in the meantime, the study sheds some new light on our current
climate situation, suggesting that human land use was likely a much more
significant factor in the carbon emissions warming our planet than
previously thought.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/23/this-is-why-when-you-talk-about-climate-change-you-cant-ignore-agriculture/?utm_term=.bd73d1310dcf
*Another US agency deletes references to climate change on government
website
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/us-government-agency-climate-change-references-removed-again>*
The term 'climate change' was changed to simply 'climate' on website of
the National Institutes of Health, the world's leading public health
research body
The National Institutes of Health deleted multiple references to climate
change on its website over the summer, continuing a trend that began
when the Trump administration took charge of the dot.gov domain.
The changes were first outlined in a report by the Environmental Data
and Governance Initiative (EDGI), which has been using volunteers to
track changes to roughly 25,000 pages across multiple government
agencies since Trump took office. EDGI counted five instances in which
the term "climate change" was changed to simply "climate" on the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) site.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/us-government-agency-climate-change-references-removed-again
*
**Stunning NASA chart shows how fast the ground beneath our feet is
heating up
<https://thinkprogress.org/global-warming-now-twice-as-fast-over-land-than-the-ocean-nasa-chart-shows-52b4afe01345/>*
The land is warming twice as fast as the oceans … too bad we live on the
land
Global temperatures are rising faster on the land, where we live, than
the oceans, where we don't, NASA charts reveal. Since scientists have
long predicted this trend and say it will continue, it's worth a closer
look.
Finally, you may be wondering why temperatures over the land are warming
so much faster than temperatures over the ocean. Part of the reason is
that the heat capacity of the ocean is so much greater than that of the
land so its initial temperature response to warming is slower. As one
explainer put it, "Think of the hot sand and cool water at the beach in
the summer." This is also why the ocean stores more than 90 percent of
all of the excess heat from global warming.
Part of the reason the ocean warms more slowly is that much of the
heating of the ocean goes into evaporation. But the land, particularly
the drier parts of the planet, don't have much moisture to evaporate–so
much more of the global warming goes directly into temperature rise....
https://thinkprogress.org/global-warming-now-twice-as-fast-over-land-than-the-ocean-nasa-chart-shows-52b4afe01345/
*Exxon Changed Its Tune on Climate Science, Depending on Audience, Study
Shows*
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/08/23/exxon-climate-science-naomi-oreskes/>
A peer-reviewed analysis of 37 years of communications from ExxonMobil
concluded that the oil company has misled the public for decades about
climate science and climate change. When their communications were aimed
at the public and non-scientific audiences, they focused on doubt and
uncertainty. At the same time, the company's internal communications and
peer-reviewed science broadly agreed with the scientific consensus that
fossil fuel burning is warming the planet.
"Available documents show a systematic discrepancy between what
ExxonMobil's scientists and executives discussed about climate change
privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general
public," the study concluded. It was researched and written by Harvard
professor Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran, a postdoctoral fellow in
Harvard's Department of the History of Science...
Danielle Fugere, president of the nonprofit As You Sow, which works to
promote corporate social responsibility, said Exxon's true colors show
through in the report.
"This analysis, while not surprising, highlights a deeply troubling
disregard for the public good," Fugere said. "We have seen this story
play out before—from asbestos, to lead, to cigarettes, naming just a
few—plausible deniability in the face of clear science has been used
time and again by companies and industries to delay protective action.
What is constantly surprising is that government leaders and agencies
fall for it every time."
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/08/23/exxon-climate-science-naomi-oreskes/
*Video Abstract: Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications
<http://bcove.me/m6l1g7no>*
http://bcove.me/m6l1g7no
Analysis Confirms <http://climatenexus.org> #ExxonKnew:*ExxonMobil
misled the public on what it knew about climate change and its link to
fossil fuels, *according to a groundbreaking new analysis of the
company's internal and external communications. In a study published
Tuesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, Harvard
postdoctoral fellow Geoffrey Supran and professor Naomi Oreskes review
nearly 200 communications on climate change from the oil giant,
including scientific research, internal company memos, and paid
editorial features in the New York Times. The analysis shows a
"quantifiable discrepancy" between internal and external communications,
with 81 percent of external advertisements casting doubt on the link
between human activity and climate change despite 80 percent of internal
communications acknowledging climate science. "Even while Exxon Mobil
scientists were contributing to climate science and writing reports that
explained it to their bosses, the company was paying for advertisements
that told a very different tale," Supran and Oreskes write in a New York
Times op-ed on the study.(InsideClimate News
<http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=93cefcc1d4&e=95b355344d>,
Mother Jones
<http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=3a46c6434e&e=95b355344d>,
Climate Liability News
<http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=f950bd1269&e=95b355344d>.
Commentary: New York Times, Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes op-ed
<http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=751a1974fb&e=95b355344d>
$, LA Times, Michael Hiltzik column
<http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=df3316d043&e=95b355344d>
$)
- also:
https://twitter.com/GeoffreySupran/status/900179538839252993
..."new peer-reviewed study shows Exxon misled the public on climate
change."
"Today, Naomi Oreskes and I are publishing a peer-reviewed study in the
journal Environmental Research Letters, in which we've studied Exxon's
40 year history of climate change communication. Our press release
summarising our findings is below. The (open-access) publication itself
...here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f or
bit.ly/ExxonPaper <http://bit.ly/ExxonPaper>
Naomi and I describe our work in an op-ed in the NY Times here
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/exxon-climate-change-.html>."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/exxon-climate-change-.html
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/exxon-climate-change-.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region>
*(Press Release) Exxon misled the public about climate change, Harvard
study shows*
"On the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences
about climate science, our analysis supports the conclusion that it
did," says the academic study published today by Dr. Geoffrey Supran and
Dr. Naomi Oreskes in the journal Environmental Research Letters. [Link
to paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f or
bit.ly/ExxonPaper. Paper published online at this address at 02:00 AM ET
August 23, 2017].
The year-long study is an expansive, quantitative, independent
corroboration of the findings of investigative journalists, who
ExxonMobil have accused of using "deliberately cherry-picked
statements." This latest work goes further, showing both that ExxonMobil
knew about the basic realities of climate change decades ago, and that
the company simultaneously communicated positions that were at odds with
this knowledge to the general public.
In short, the paper finds, "ExxonMobil contributed quietly to the
science and loudly to raising doubts about it." The company's academic
publications had an average readership of tens to hundreds, whereas
advertorial readerships were likely in the millions.
Other interesting findings of the analysis
Most of ExxonMobil's climate science has been spearheaded by one
person.
"In 1986, scientist Haroon Kheshgi joined ER&E [Exxon Research and
Engineering], and was henceforth ExxonMobil's principal (and only
consistent) academic author, co-authoring 72% (52/72) of all analyzed
peer-reviewed work (79% since his hiring). Indeed, the metadata title of
the "Exxon Mobil Contributed Publications" file is "Haroon's CV."" (See
section 4.1.1 of paper for details.)
The Harvard study finds that "ExxonMobil's advertorials included
several instances of explicit factual misrepresentation."
For example, "...an ExxonMobil advertorial in 2000 directly contradicted
the IPCC and presented "very misleading" data, according to the
scientist who produced the data." (See section 3.1.5 of paper for details.)
Advertorials were part of an ExxonMobil climate change
communication plan
"Mobil/ExxonMobil bought AGW advertorials in the NYT specifically to
allow "the public to know where we stand." Readerships were likely in
the millions. The company took out an advertorial every Thursday between
1972 and 2001. They paid a discounted price of roughly $31,000 (2016
USD) per advertorial and bought one-quarter of all advertorials on the
Op-Ed page, "towering over the other sponsors" according to reviews of
Mobil's advertorials by Brown, Waltzer, and Waltzer." (See section 4 of
paper for details.)
ExxonMobil's early estimates of the "carbon budget" — which implies
risks of stranded fossil fuel assets, many have argued — "are within a
factor of two of contemporary estimates." (See section 3.4.2 of paper
for details.)
- also from the NYTimes:
*What Exxon Mobil Didn't Say About Climate Change
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/exxon-climate-change-.html?mcubz=0>*
Scrutiny is mounting on the world's largest publicly traded oil and gas
company. On multiple legal fronts the question is being asked: Did Exxon
Mobil's communications about climate change break the law?
That's what some of Exxon Mobil's current and former employees think. In
February, they filed a lawsuit arguing that the company deceived them by
making false and misleading statements about the financial risks of
climate change, which they argue affected the value of shares they
bought as part of a company-sponsored savings plan. Other Exxon Mobil
shareholders are bringing similar charges against the company in a
separate class-action securities fraud case.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/exxon-climate-change-.html?mcubz=0
*'Hero' of Paris climate agreement dies
<http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41014093>*
By Matt McGrath
Former Marshall Islands foreign minister Tony De Brum, who played a key
role in securing the Paris climate pact has passed away aged 72.
At countless UN climate meetings, Mr De Brum was a passionate champion
of the rights of small island states.
He was instrumental in securing the "high ambition coalition" of rich
and poor countries that was pivotal to a deal in the French capital.
Mr De Brum died at his home in Majuro, the capital of the Marshall Islands.
In the Paris climate negotiations, his warm, personal and relaxed style
was very much in contrast to the stiffer, greyer faces of some teams.
He used his charm to build strong personal relationships with many of
the political leaders from rich and poor countries alike.
This helped create the "coalition of high ambition," a group that
ultimately involved around 100 nations, including the US, the EU,
African, Caribbean and island states.
This alliance of rich and poor proved critical in pushing the deal through.
The biggest win from Mr De Brum's perspective, was that the Paris
agreement committed to the goal of keeping global temperature increases
close to 1.5C - "1.5 to stay alive," was a phrase often used by Mr De Brum.
Tributes to the former minister have been led by the Marshall Islands'
President Hilda Heine.
"The very existence of the Paris Climate Agreement owes a lot to Tony De
Brum," she wrote in a statement.
"He was a giant of history, a legend in every meaning of the world and a
custodian of our shared future."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41014093
*This Day in Climate History August 24, 2005
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/nyregion/24air.html> - from D.R. Tucker*
August 24, 2005: The New York Times reports: "Officials in New York and
eight other Northeastern states have come to a preliminary agreement to
freeze power plant emissions at their current levels and then reduce
them by 10 percent by 2020, according to a confidential draft proposal.
"The cooperative action, the first of its kind in the nation, came after
the Bush administration decided not to regulate the greenhouse gases
that contribute to global warming. Once a final agreement is reached,
the legislatures of the nine states will have to enact it, which is
considered likely."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/nyregion/24air.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
////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/20170824/d985ceea/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list