[TheClimate.Vote] July 16, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sun Jul 16 09:08:42 EDT 2017
/July 16, 2017/
*Climate Change Could Make The Earth "Practically Ungovernable"
<https://futurism.com/former-nasa-climate-chief-warns-that-earth-could-become-practically-ungovernable/>*
It's time to get serious.
DOM GALEON, FUTURISM 15 JUL 2017
Former NASA climate chief James Hansen believes climate change's most
dangerous effect will be a continuous rise in sea levels and not
necessarily the increase in temperatures.
Because so many people live in coastal cities, the mass migrations
inland that will follow this rise could leave the world in ungovernable
chaos.
Simply fixating on the potential negative effects of climate change
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html>
instead of focusing on efforts to combat it will not help our planet
<https://futurism.com/alarmism-will-not-help-us-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/>.
However, climate change predictions are the reason these efforts matter,
and they provide valuable insights as to how we should take action.
Hansen asserts that a carbon tax could help stabilize the economy as the
world transitions away from fossil fuels, but the important thing is
that this transition happens. Without serious efforts on every level,
from the individual to the institutional, we stand no chance of
preventing climate change from wreaking havoc on our planet.
https://www.sciencealert.com/climate-change-could-make-the-planet-practically-ungovernable
https://futurism.com/former-nasa-climate-chief-warns-that-earth-could-become-practically-ungovernable/
*"The world cannot stabilize what it does not watch."
<https://www.co2.earth/>*
Year 2100 Projections - Where will proposal form the climate
negotiations lead?
ClimateInteractive.org Based on climate action pledges of UN member
countries
https://www.co2.earth/
*Why the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than weather
records suggest
<https://theconversation.com/why-the-climate-is-more-sensitive-to-carbon-dioxide-than-weather-records-suggest-80463>*
One of the key questions about climate change is the strength of the
greenhouse effect. In scientific terms this is described as "climate
sensitivity". It's defined as the amount Earth's average temperature
will ultimately rise in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels.
Climate sensitivity has been hard to pin down accurately. Climate models
give a range of 1.5-4.5℃ per doubling of CO₂, whereas historical weather
observations suggest a smaller range of 1.5-3.0℃ per doubling of CO₂.
In a new study published in Science Advances, Cristian Proistosescu and
Peter J. Huybers of Harvard University resolve this discrepancy, by
showing that the models are likely to be right...
According to their statistical analysis, historical weather observations
reveal only a portion of the planet's full response to rising CO₂
levels. The true climate sensitivity will only become manifest on a time
scale of centuries, due to effects that researchers call "slow climate
feedbacks"...
"This illustrates the problem with using historical weather observations
to estimate climate sensitivity - it assumes the response will be
linear. In fact, there are factors in the future that can push the curve
upwards and increase climate variability, including transient reversals
that might interrupt long-term warming. Put simply, temperatures have
not yet caught up with the rising greenhouse gas levels."...
A study led by climatologist James Hansen concluded that climate
sensitivity is about 3℃ for a doubling of CO₂ when considering only
short-term feedbacks. However, it's potentially as high as 6℃ when
considering a final equilibrium involving much of the West and East
Antarctic ice melting, if and when global greenhouse levels transcend
the 500-700ppm CO₂ range...
Climate change is unlikely to proceed in a linear way. Instead, there is
a range of potential thresholds, tipping points, and points of no return
that can be crossed during either warming or transient short-lived
cooling pauses followed by further warming.
Humanity's release of greenhouse gases is unprecedented in speed and
scale. But if we look far enough back in time we can get some clues as
to what to expect. Around 56 million years ago
<http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=136084&pt=2&p=148709>, Earth
experienced warming by 5-8℃ lasting several millennia, after a sudden
release of methane-triggered feedbacks that caused the CO₂ level rise to
around 1,800ppm
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-last-great-global-warming/>...
Yet even that sudden rise of CO₂ levels was lower by a large factor
<https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends> than the current CO₂ rise
rate of 2-3ppm per year. At this rate, unprecedented in Earth's recorded
history of the past 65 million years
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13342/abstract> (with
the exception of the consequences of asteroid impacts), the climate may
be entering truly uncharted territory.
https://theconversation.com/why-the-climate-is-more-sensitive-to-carbon-dioxide-than-weather-records-suggest-80463
*Cenozoic mean greenhouse gases and temperature changes with reference
to the Anthropocene
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13342/abstract>*
Authors Andrew Glikson
DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13342
Abstract
Cenozoic greenhouse gases (GHG) variations and warming periods
underscore the extreme rates of current climate change, with major
implications for the adaptability and survivability of terrestrial
and marine habitats. Current rise rate of greenhouse gases, reaching
3.3 ppm CO2 per year during March 2015-2016, is the fastest recorded
since the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Event (PETM) when carbon release
to the atmosphere was about an order of magnitude less than at
present. The ice core evidence of concentration of (GHG) and
temperatures in the atmosphere/ocean/cryosphere system over the last
740 kyr suggests that the rate of rise in GHG over the last ~260
years, CO2 rates rising from 0.94 ppm yr−1 in 1959 (315.97 ppm) to
1.62 ppm yr−1 in 2000 (369.52 ppm) to 3.05 ppm yr−1 in 2015 (400.83
ppm), constitutes a unique spike in the history of the atmosphere...
(clip)
The accumulation of carbon, including cellulosein trees, grasses, soils
and bogs, methane hydrate andmethane clathrate deposits in bogs,
sediments and per-mafrost, when combined with oxygen emitted by
photosynthesis, sets the stage for flammable land surfaces, repeatedly
ignited by lightning, instantaneous combustion of peat and by volcanic
eruptions. Under high O2, partial pressure even moist vegetation can be
ignited (Bowman et al., 2009). Burial of carbon in sediments has stored
the fuel over geological periods, buffering the surface inventory of
combustible material, pending the arrival of the Homo sapiens.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13342/abstract
*
THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
<https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html>*
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, R/GMD, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO
80305-3328
James.H.Butler at noaa.gov
Stephen.A.Montzka at noaa.gov
Updated Spring 2017
The AGGI is a measure of the climate-warming influence of long-lived
trace gases and how that influence has changed since the onset of the
industrial revolution. The index was designed to enhance the connection
between scientists and society by providing a normalized standard that
can be easily understood and followed. The warming influence of
long-lived greenhouse gases is well understood by scientists and has
been reported by NOAA through a range of national and international
assessments. Nevertheless, the language of scientists often eludes
policy makers, educators, and the general public. This index is designed
to help bridge that gap. The AGGI provides a way for this warming
influence to be presented as a simple index.
An Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) has been defined as the ratio of
the total direct radiative forcing due to long-lived greenhouse gases
for any year for which adequate global measurements exist to that which
was present in 1990. 1990 was chosen because it is the baseline year for
the Kyoto Protocol.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
*Former Civil Servants Release Practical Guide for Resisting Trump
Proposals to Dismantle Public Protections <https://saveepa.wordpress.com/>*
DENVER - The Trump Administration's assault on federal rules that
protect the public is in full swing. President Trump may be having
trouble getting Congress to adopt his agenda, but he has more control
over federal agencies and he's using it to roll back health,
environmental, consumer, workplace and other protections. In response,
former federal employees today are issuing a guide to help Americans
resist the Trump deregulatory agenda
<http://www.saveepaalums.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RM-Guide.7-13-17-.pdf>
through the federal public comment process and other forms of activism.
Developed by Save EPA - an all-volunteer, Denver-based group of former
EPA employees - "A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump De-Regulatory
Agenda
<http://www.saveepaalums.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RM-Guide.7-13-17-.pdf>"
is a how-to manual for Americans who want to engage with and communicate
their views to all federal agencies proposing to rescind, weaken or
delay rules that protect the public. Modeled after the Indivisible Guide
for holding Congress accountable, Save EPA's guide offers insights and
advice for making agencies listen.
"We know that many Americans are deeply disturbed by the
Administration's campaign to roll back rules that protect the health of
our families, a clean environment, the safety of workers, and the
fairness of our economy," said Joni Teter, a leader of the Save EPA
group. "We want to help Americans sound the alarm about the dangerous
and counterproductive actions that are being taken, in ways that can
help make a difference."
Save EPA's guide:
+ debunks standard claims for rolling back regulations
+ provides basic information about how regulations are made
+ offers advice about how to participate effectively in the rulemaking
process
+ suggests complementary tactics to be used outside the rulemaking process
+ describes how to find out about deregulatory actions and provides links to
organizations tracking those actions
+ provides links to other helpful guides and materials
Its release comes on the heels of a New York Times report on Monday that
the Trump
Administration's effort to aggressively scale back government
regulations is being
conducted in large part out of public view and often by political
appointees with deep
industry ties and potential conflicts of interest. That article makes
clear the imperative
It is modeled after Indivisible <https://www.indivisibleguide.com/>'s
guide holding Congress accountable, it serves as a how-to manual for
Americans who want to engage with and communicate their views to all
federal agencies.
https://saveepa.wordpress.com/
Climate Scientist Michael Oppenheimer
*'Personally, I Would Rate the Likelihood of Staying Under Two Degrees
of Warming As Under 10 Percent': Michael Oppenheimer on the 'Unknown
Unknowns' of Climate Change*
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/michael-oppenheimer-10-percent-chance-we-meet-paris-targets.html>
"Conventional wisdom doesn't have a good reputation anymore."
*What kind of warming is likely? I know that there are so many factors
that go into that, including how we adapt; what is the likelihood we
stay below two degrees?*
I think the likelihood that we stay below two degrees even with diligent
efforts was relatively small - maybe 20 percent, in my view - before the
Trump withdrawal from Paris. And the likelihood is now increased
markedly that we're not going to make the two degrees. Personally I
would rate the likelihood as under 10 percent. So I think we need to be
prepared for a world where we are going to have eventually a large
sea-level rise, for a world in which we have extended episodes of
unbearable excess heat, for a world where eventually crop yields will
decline significantly in parts of the world and cause food-security
problems that go over the edge at least periodically, and that means
more starvation and malnutrition. Where natural ecosystems like coral
reefs, some of them, are going to be doomed. We're probably already
bought into a world we're not going to like very much - and the
likelihood of other surprising outcomes is increasing markedly. One of
the ones that's already been pointed to that is of special concern is a
shutdown or slowing of the ocean conveyor belt.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/michael-oppenheimer-10-percent-chance-we-meet-paris-targets.html
*Three years to safeguard our climate
<https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201>*
Christiana Figueres and colleagues set out a six-point plan for turning
the tide of the world's carbon dioxide by 2020.
In the past three years, global emissions of carbon dioxide from the
burning of fossil fuels have levelled after rising for decades. This is
a sign that policies and investments in climate mitigation are starting
to pay off. The United States, China and other nations are replacing
coal with natural gas and boosting renewable energy sources. There is
almost unanimous international agreement that the risks of abandoning
the planet to climate change are too great to ignore.
The technology-driven transition to low-carbon energy is well under way,
a trend that made the 2015 Paris climate agreement possible. But there
is still a long way to go to decarbonize the world economy. The
political winds are blustery. President Donald Trump has announced that
the United States will withdraw from the Paris agreement when it is
legally able to do so, in November 2020...
The magnitude of the challenge can be grasped by computing a budget for
CO2 emissions - the maximum amount of the gas that can be released
before the temperature limit is breached. After subtracting past
emissions, humanity is left with a 'carbon credit' of between 150 and
1,050 gigatonnes (Gt; one Gt is 1 × 109 tonnes) of CO2 to meet the Paris
target of 1.5 °C or well below 2 °C (see go.nature.com/2rytztf). The
wide range reflects different ways of calculating the budgets using the
most recent figures...
At the current emission rate of 41 Gt of CO2 per year, the lower limit
of this range would be crossed in 4 years, and the midpoint of 600 Gt of
CO2 would be passed in 15 years. If the current rate of annual emissions
stays at this level, we would have to drop them almost immediately to
zero once we exhaust the budget. Such a 'jump to distress' is in no
one's interest. A more gradual descent would allow the global economy
time to adapt smoothly.
https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201
*Why aren't politicians doing more on climate change? Maybe because
they're so old.
<https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/7/14/15959968/climate-change-teenager>*
I'm a teenager. Unlike the average member of Congress, I'll have to live
with the devastation of climate change.
Our country's leaders have a problem, and it's called apathy.
There is no such thing as a "climate change denier" - only a person who
doesn't understand the problem enough to care. Climate change is
happening, and it's our cars, our cows, and our factories that are
warming the earth and slowly bringing disaster. Which is why it makes me
so upset that such a large number of our politicians consistently deny
climate change and promote irresponsible corporate actions.
I'm a 16-year-old from Cincinnati. "Climate change" was always a term I
heard people toss around, but I didn't think much of it until freshman
year when my debate team was assigned the topic of carbon taxes. I was
practically forced into doing hours of research on climate change, and
as I became aware of the devastating consequences that are just on the
horizon, I became passionate about protecting future generations from
the mess we created. And I got really angry at our politicians for their
consistent inaction.
Far too many politicians are apathetic about climate change
Why don't our politicians care? Maybe because they won't be here to
experience the real consequences of climate change.
Why don't our politicians care?
My answer to this question came last fall, when I realized that the
average senator is 62 years old, and the average House member is 57.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/7/14/15959968/climate-change-teenager
(Opinions from Australia)
*The climate change scare campaign most politicians won't go near
<http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-climate-change-scare-campaign-most-politicians-wont-go-near-20170713-gxahjc.html>*
Jacqueline Maley
You can tell the coal-fanciers within the Coalition are panicked. Not
content with scaremongering about rising electricity prices, they are
now invoking the greatest carbon price of them all - death.
On Thursday morning Liberal MP Craig Kelly said people would die of cold
this winter because renewable energy was putting up electricity prices.
Both elements of this outlandish statement were baseless and wrong, but
instead of that disqualifying Kelly from the debate, it served only to
burnish his credentials for it.
Because when it comes to climate change policy, if you're not scaring
people, preferably age pensioners - a magical category of voter who can
ill afford bill hikes and will never live to see the effects of
dangerous climate change - you're just not doing it right.
The greatest thing about this scare campaign? You don't even have to
make up the facts.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-climate-change-scare-campaign-most-politicians-wont-go-near-20170713-gxahjc.html
*Tobacco companies tighten hold on Washington under Trump
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-trump-administration-ties>*
Top White House figures - including the vice-president and health
secretary - have deep ties to an industry whose donations began pouring
in on day one
Tobacco companies have moved swiftly to strengthen their grip on
Washington politics, ramping up lobbying efforts and securing
significant regulatory wins in the first six months of the Trump era.
Day one of Donald Trump's presidency started with tobacco donations,
senior figures have been put in place within the Trump administration
who have deep ties to tobacco, and lobbying activity has increased
significantly.
"As in so many areas, the promise to drain the swamp has been an
extraordinary hypocrisy," said Senator Richard Blumenthal, who supported
anti-tobacco legislation and was one of the US attorneys general to
broker a hundred-billion-dollar settlement with tobacco companies in the
1990s. "Many of his appointees have deep commitments to the tobacco
industry," he said.
"Tobacco industry influence in Washington is pervasive, in many
different ways," Blumenthal said. "They have an active presence on the
Hill, they meet frequently with administrative agencies, on hugely
significant issues such as regulation of e-cigarettes, tobacco packaging
and warnings."
America's largest cigarette manufacturers, Reynolds American and Altria
Group, donated $1.5m to help the new president celebrate his
inauguration. The donations allowed executives to dine and mingle with
top administration officials and their families.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-trump-administration-ties
*Climate change, a challenge to water, energy and food nexus
<http://www.kuenselonline.com/climate-change-a-challenge-to-water-energy-and-food-nexus/>*
July 6, 2017 News Leave a comment 1,137 Views
Although South Asian countries have potential to generate energy and
water available for food production, climate change remains a challenge.
At the SAARC regional consultation meeting on water, energy and food
nexus in Thimphu on July 4, the director of climate change center with
the university of agriculture in Pakistan, Prof Muhammad Zulfiqar (PhD)
said, food and water are essential for existence whereas, energy is the
key to human development. "Access to these resources and their
sustainable management are the basis for sustainable development."
Bhutan, he said, has the potential to generate 30,000 megawatt of
electricity with 72 percent of the country's population already having
access to electricity. Bhutan also has the potential to generate an
average of four kWh/m2/day of solar energy.
http://www.kuenselonline.com/climate-change-a-challenge-to-water-energy-and-food-nexus/
*(rant-like opinion) Scott Pruitt and the Whiny Crybaby Losers
<http://wp.me/p2dVD-2qM>*
New post on Open Mind by tamino
Scott Pruitt wants to replace science with a 3-ring circus
Scott Pruitt, new head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
wants a "red team/blue team debate" about global warming. That's where
two sides argue different opinions on some topic, and at its best it
brings greater clarity about the issue. In this case, red is "The
consensus of climate scientists is wrong," blue is "The consensus is right."
We've already had this debate, for over 100 years, right where it should
take place: the scientific literature and scientific conferences. The
red team lost. Big time. But they are sore losers, whiny little crybabies.
The whiny crybaby losers have a champion: Scott Pruitt. He doesn't just
want a "red team/blue team" debate, he wants one broadcast on TV. That
kind of "debate" is bad for truth, good for lawyer-type rhetoric. It
won't matter who's right or wrong, just who can be more charismatic
and/or persuasive to the general public.
This charade will be nothing but a 3-ring circus. The only thing it will
accomplish is to provide lots of 10-second soundbites to be endlessly
repeated on Faux news.
How about a red team/blue team debate - on TV - to decide whether or not
cigarettes cause cancer?
If Scott Pruitt and the rest of the Trump administration were in the
pockets of big tobacco, that's what we'd get. But they're in the pockets
of fossil fuel money - so this is what we get.
http://wp.me/p2dVD-2qM
*This Day in Climate History July 16, 1992
<http://www.speeches-usa.com/Transcripts/al_gore-1992dnc.htm> - from
D.R. Tucker*
July 16, 1992: At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, Senator and
Vice-Presidential nominee Al Gore notes:
“I've spent much of my career working to protect the environment, not
only because it is vital to the future of my State of Tennessee, our
country and our earth, but because I believe there is a fundamental link
between our current relationship to the earth and the attitudes that
stand in the way of human progress. For generations we have believed
that we could abuse the earth because we were somehow not really
connected to it, but now we must face the truth. The task of saving the
earth's environment must and will become the central organizing
principle of the post-Cold War world.
“And just as the false assumption that we are not connected to the
earth has led to the ecological crisis, so the equally false assumption
that we are not connected to each other has led to our social crisis.”
He also declares that President George H. W. Bush and Vice President
Dan Quayle “embarrassed our nation when the whole world was asking for
American leadership in confronting the environmental crisis. It is time
for them to go.”
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/27161-1
http://www.speeches-usa.com/Transcripts/al_gore-1992dnc.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
////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/20170716/e15e05c5/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list