[TheClimate.Vote] May 4, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu May 4 09:46:46 EDT 2017
/May 4, 2017 /
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/global-warming-portends-an-increase-in-quebec-forest-fires-researcher
*Global warming*portends an increase in Quebec forest fires:
researcher
<http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/global-warming-portends-an-increase-in-quebec-forest-fires-researcher>
Montreal Gazette -5 hours ago
With*global warming*, drought in Quebec will increase in the next few
years as well as forest fires, professor and researcher Yves Bergeron
said Wednesday.
https://indivisibleeb.org/2017/04/19/help-defend-the-environment-from-your-couch/
*Help defend the environment from your couch!
<https://indivisibleeb.org/2017/04/19/help-defend-the-environment-from-your-couch/>*
As of today, the EPA had received just over 9,000 comments. (To put
this in perspective: the FCC received 3.7 million comments when net
neutrality was threatened. We have less than two weeks and a long
way to go.)
I'm working with Indivisible Berkeley and Indivisible East Bay, both
of which are trying to rally more participation in this process, and
we are hoping to partner with environmental NGOs that - we imagine -
are already doing something to gather comments. We have partnerships
with OFA and volunteers willing to phone bank - but we'd love some
guidance on what, specifically, to ask of people, and which people
to target. Please let us know if your group would like to work with us!
Indivisible East Bay's call-to-action:
https://indivisibleeb.org/2017/04/19/help-defend-the-environment-from-your-couch/
Indivisible Berkeley's call-to-action:
https://www.indivisibleberkeley.org/epa
http://www.kmov.com/story/35335525/how-much-is-climate-change-contributing-to-record-flooding
How much is*climate change*contributing to record flooding?
<http://www.kmov.com/story/35335525/how-much-is-climate-change-contributing-to-record-flooding>
KMOV.com -28 minutes ago
A pamphlet issued by the federal government months ago states that
climate change could be playing a role in flooding in the St. Louis
area...the EPA ..document ... says climate change means more heavy
precipitation and flooding for Missouri.
... over the past half century, rainfall during the wettest four
days of the year has increased 35 percent. The amount of water
flowing in most streams during the worst floods has increased by
more than 20 percent, the EPA says.
An expert also said that increased development along rivers is also
to blame.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/humans_are_better_at_rapid_change_than_we_think_20170503
*Humans better at rapid change than we think
<http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/humans_are_better_at_rapid_change_than_we_think_20170503>*
A new study provides evidence that humans are capable of radically
altering the world around us, and offers hope in the face of climate
change.
LONDON, 3 May, 2017 - Human beings often forget that we have an
invaluable ability, says a study by two British social scientists:
we can change the world around us, and our treatment of it, more
quickly and more significantly than we realise...
..rapid, radical transitions are more possible than we suppose, the
study says.
http://www.newweather.org/2017/04/24/new-study-how-did-we-do-that-the-possibility-of-rapid-transition/
*New study: How did we do that? The possibility of rapid transition
<http://www.newweather.org/2017/04/24/new-study-how-did-we-do-that-the-possibility-of-rapid-transition/>*
The study is published by the New Weather Institute and the STEPS
Centre, University of Sussex and was funded by the UK's Economic and
Social Research Council. Lessons drawn from the study include:
*- **Fairness matters*: to be accepted, rapid change must be seen to
be fair. This is especially true if and where there is any perceived
sacrifice to be made for the greater good.
*- We're actually good at change:* New social norms can quickly
take root in everything from working patterns, to transport use,
attitudes surrounding prejudice, and patterns of consumption.
*- Public leadership is needed*: Initial public investment in a
sector or activity can leverage larger levels of investment from
other sources.
*- There's no one path:* Rapid transitions can result from bottom
up and top down approaches, but ensuring that top down approaches
are equitable and inclusive is a key challenge.
*- Inaction costs:* It matters always to be clear about both the
costs of inaction and the benefits of action.
*- Pleasant surprises do happen:* Change always brings with it
unplanned and unexpected consequences - but it can also bring
unintended benefits.
*- Agitation is necessary:* Agitation in the face of overwhelming
odds, and even likely failure, can be a common and necessary feature
of great achievements. Movements for race and gender equality, and
against colonialism and homophobia, show clearly how progressive
political change from above - by governments and others - often has
its roots in long fought struggles from below.
*- Accepting boundaries triggers innovation:* Setting new
parameters around consumption - such as introducing safe limits on
the burning of fossil fuels - can unleash innovation and reveal
great, nascent adaptive capacity. Businesses, societies and whole
economies adapt to new 'rules of the game' remarkably quickly.
*- Value experiences, not 'stuff'*: Material consumption of 'stuff'
in rich industrialised countries can be substituted by spending on
experiential activities that benefit well-being.
Click here to download the report: How did we do that? The
possibility of rapid transition
<http://www.newweather.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/How_Did_We_Do_That_WEB.pdf>
PDF file
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/save-lives-supercomputers-dive-hearts-natures-worst-tornadoes/
*To save lives, supercomputers dive into the hearts of nature's worst
tornadoes
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/save-lives-supercomputers-dive-hearts-natures-worst-tornadoes/>*
Leigh Orf chases tornadoes across America's central plains, but not
from inside a pickup truck. His preferred vehicle is a computer.
Orf, a University of Wisconsin-Madison meteorologist, creates
computer simulations of supercell thunderstorms — and the twisters
they spawn — from the safety of his lab. Even when they don't yield
twisters, supercells are some of the most powerful and deadly forms
of severe weather, and like many in his field, Orf wants to
understand their inner mechanics.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Leigh+Orf+Univeristy+of+wisconsin
*Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Violent Tornadoes -- Leigh Orf
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Leigh+Orf+Univeristy+of+wisconsin>**see
many YouTube videos *
Tornadogenesis: 30 meter simulation of a violently tornadic
supercell thunderstorm. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHhKI0T3t78>
20 meter simulation of multiple-vortex EF5 tornado embedded within
its parent supercell <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsO6xUHn5ME>
Bret Stephens Takes On*Climate Change*. Readers Unleash Their Fury
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/public-editor/bret-stephens-climate-change-liz-spayd-public-editor.html>
New York Times -7 hours ago
But many are incensed by what they felt was the gall of Stephens to
take on climate change as his first column, and then to obliquely
suggest that the data underlying climate science may be flawed, just
like the data that predicted a Hillary Clinton ...
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060053997
*Scientists demand New York Times correct column
<https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060053997>*
Hannah Hess, E&E News reporterPublished: Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Scientists are calling on The New York Times to publish a more
comprehensive correction to columnist Bret Stephens' "inaccurate and
misleading statements" about climate change.
Prominent figures — including Michael Mann, Katharine Hayhoe,
Michael Oppenheimer, John Abraham and Ben Santer — have signed an
open letter protesting Stephens' inaugural column.
https://www.climatefactsfirst.org/
*An Open Letter From Climate Experts
<https://www.climatefactsfirst.org/>*
A CHANGING POLITICAL CLIMATE SHOULDN'T CHANGE NYT'S DEDICATION TO
FACTS
We are deeply concerned about inaccurate and misleading statements
about the science of climate change that appeared in Climate of
Complete Certainty by Bret Stephens (April 28, 2017). While
"alternative facts", misconceptions, and misrepresentations of
climate science are unfortunately widespread in public discussion,
we are dismayed that this practice appeared on the editorial page of
The New York Times.
There are opinions and there are facts. Stephens is entitled to
share his opinions, but not "alternative facts."
Fact: The N. Hemisphere warmed substantially more than claimed by
the writer...
...We call on the Times to publish a more comprehensive correction
to the inaccuracies that appeared in Stephen's column and to avoid
such errors in the future by fact checking columns as carefully as
they do news stories.
There is certainly a place for a variety of well-informed opinions
when it comes to societal responses to climate change. But it must
be made clear that there are facts that are not subject to opinion.
If you are a scientist,click here to add your name to the letter
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScIG-SXtJqjHnUesIYs4Tc1FbI_jxq3aBv82N3TQvAZ61Fj6w/viewform?usp=sf_link>.
Concerned members of the public, click here to take action.
<https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/new-york-times-dont-publish-climate-science-misinformation?source=direct_link&>
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WAGOV/bulletins/1984528
*Inslee among 12 governors urging Trump to keep U.S. in Paris Agreement
<https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WAGOV/bulletins/1984528>*
OLYMPIA - Gov. Jay Inslee and 11 other governors sent a letter to
President Trump today
<http://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbXNpZD0mYXVpZD0mbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTcwNTAzLjcyOTgxOTUxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE3MDUwMy43Mjk4MTk1MSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE2ODU5NTg2JmVtYWlsaWQ9c2FtLnJpY2tldHRzQGdvdi53YS5nb3YmdXNlcmlkPXNhbS5yaWNrZXR0c0Bnb3Yud2EuZ292JnRhcmdldGlkPSZmbD0mZXh0cmE9TXVsdGl2YXJpYXRlSWQ9JiYm&&&101&&&http://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017-05-03_GovernorsLetter-Paris.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery>
urging the administration to continue the United States' involvement
in the international Paris Climate Agreement. Inslee issued the
following statement:
"Climate change is already affecting our state and nation in
damaging ways, and an international response at all levels of
government is essential to avoiding its worst impacts. American
leadership is crucial to the success of that international effort,
and continued U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement is our
nation's moral responsibility....
The United States was one of 195 nations that signed the Paris
Climate Agreement in December 2015. As of April 2017, 144 counties
have formally ratified it. The agreement went into effect in November.
https://climatecrocks.com/2017/05/03/is-this-the-earliest-full-climate-documentary/
*Is this the Earliest Full Climate Documentary?
<https://climatecrocks.com/2017/05/03/is-this-the-earliest-full-climate-documentary/>*
Hard to watch, but essential to understand. What we knew and when we
knew it.
Leo Hickman in Carbon Brief:
On the evening of Tuesday, 8 December, 1981, the UK's only
commercial TV channel, ITV, broadcast an hour-long documentary
called "Warming Warning".
It was among the earliest occasions - possibly the earliest -
anywhere in the world where a major broadcaster aired a documentary
dedicated solely to the topic of human-caused climate change.
The documentary, which was made by the now-defunct Thames
Television, has sat in the archives largely unseen ever since. Until
now.
.................
https://youtu.be/DMjnvfkeJJ0
Climate Change - Warming Warning - 1981 <https://youtu.be/DMjnvfkeJJ0>
Thames Televisions 'Warming Warning'
First Shown: 08/12/1981
.....................
I got an inquiry today about whether this was the earliest major
documentary on climate science. In my archive I have a mention of
the problem towards the end of an NBC Network News broadcast on the
original Earth Day in 1970.
https://youtu.be/o0YLMuPA_Jo
Greenhouse Warning on Earth Day 1970: NBC News
<https://youtu.be/o0YLMuPA_Jo>
Listen to the end. News coverage of nationwide environmental news
coverage on the first Earth Day in 1970.
Prominently featured, warnings about a greenhouse effect, and a
warming earth.
...............
One obvious connection to make is the science that was being done at
companies like Exxon in the late 70s, early 80s, that matched the
conclusions being reached at NASA, NOAA, and major research
institutions.
https://youtu.be/aannOZw2shY
What Exxon Knew <https://youtu.be/aannOZw2shY>
Newly released documents show that scientists at Exxon Oil
Corporation conducted research on climate change and the greenhouse
effect in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Their conclusions were in
accord with mainstream scientific groups in academia, NASA, NOAA,
and the Department of Energy, showing that global warming posed a
serious problem, with potential "catastrophic effects."
..................
https://youtu.be/OmpiuuBy-4s
Global Warming: What We Knew in 82 <https://youtu.be/OmpiuuBy-4s>
I interviewed climate scientists Mike MacCracken in 2012, about his
work at the same time, as leader of a task force for the Department
of Energy on climate change and the CO2 problem. Mike was doing
some research in collaboration with Exxon scientists at the time,
and was on the same page.
.................
https://youtu.be/ox5hbkg34Ow
Climate: What did We Know and When Did We Know it?
<https://youtu.be/ox5hbkg34Ow>
I've been collecting archival footage documenting early climate
communication. That was the basis for this recent video, comparing
early 1980s projections of climate change, with current observations.
...................
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=sdALFnlwV_o
Climate Science 1956: A Blast from the Past
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=sdALFnlwV_o>
Here, a vinyl recording from General Electric in 1956 is a
discussion of climate science in very early days.
..................
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY
Climate Change 1958: The Bell Telephone Science Hour
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY>
and of course, beloved and avuncular "Dr. Frank Baxter" delivered
the message in a 1958 "Bell Telephone Science Hour", a segment
directed by Frank Capra ("It's a Wonderful Life").
.................more:
Thatcher, 1989: "What we are now doing to the world, by degrading
the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse
gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the
experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are
changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. "
https://youtu.be/Fys5Z63xCvA
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
-------------------------
Lyndon Johnson, 1965:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/05/scientists-warned-the-president-about-global-warming-50-years-ago-today
..........................
https://youtu.be/UQfYKbKdlBM
Isaac Asimov How People Can Save The Earth for Humans
<https://youtu.be/UQfYKbKdlBM>
Asimov, 1989, referring back "at least 20 years", 1969:
https://www.climatesolutions.org/article/1493757494-thanks-quarter-million
*Thanks a quarter million+
<https://www.climatesolutions.org/article/1493757494-thanks-quarter-million>*
by KC Golden on May 2, 2017
Of the 200,000 people who came to the People's Climate March in DC
last Saturday, I got to thank maybe 300 personally. I spent much of
the day overcome with gratitude. This will have to do as my thanks
to the other 199,700, and the over 100,000 others who marched in
over 370 places around the country and the world....
...But worse than the incredulity is the guilt. Just saying what we
do makes people squirm, because it pokes their denial. The vast
majority of people are not climate science deniers per se, but we're
ALL in some form climate denial - some kind of psychological
accommodation that allows us to put one foot in front of the other
when we're clearly on a path that leads over a cliff. By naming our
work, we challenge that. Not too many people turn around and walk
away, but many seem to wish they could. Some feel compelled to
explain why they had to drive a car that day, as if we might issue a
carbon citation.
So people who work on climate carry a lot of fear and shame - their
own, and some of the ambient guilt of people who come to associate
them with this overwhelming threat we all create. We humans
(especially humans of privilege) spend a great deal of psychic
energy trying to find some darkness to put the climate crisis in,
someplace out of the center of our consciousness, where the glare of
existential horror and our own complicity isn't quite so harsh.
Shining a light into those dark corners can be thankless work....
Marching along, signs and spirits high, it even becomes possible to
imagine that the tide might turn fast enough to save a decent
future. You can glimpse - with the vision of 400,000 diverse eyes -
how the transition might renew community, advance justice, enhance
economic security, rebuild democracy. Too many days, we can't help
but feel we are alone with these possibilities and the necessity of
reaching toward them. In our isolation and fear, we wonder whether
they're real. But not last Saturday, and -with the immense
collective energy of the marches fresh in our hearts - not any day soon.
https://www.climatesolutions.org/article/1432250679-we-have-met-wrong-enemy
*(opinion) We have met the wrong enemy
<https://www.climatesolutions.org/article/1432250679-we-have-met-wrong-enemy>*
by KC Golden on May 22, 2015
By all means, let's find ways within our reach to reduce our oil
consumption. But let's also get real: We are not going to save
ourselves from climate chaos by gnashing our teeth about our own
complicity or calling protestors hypocrites. That's just letting
Shell walk all over us and get away with torching the future. If
you prefer to focus on personal responsibility, think of the Polar
Pioneer as an avatar for our own wastefulness and consumerism.
Whatever makes you mad enough, determined enough, unambivalent
enough to actually stand up and stop them before they wreck
everything - feel that.
Let's forgive ourselves for being part of the only system there is.
But let's change the damned system so we can do what we know is
right, necessary, and possible: make the transition from fossil
fuels to a clean energy economy. We don't have to do it overnight.
We don't have to forsake all fossil fuel use and the jobs that
depend on it. We just have to keep moving in the right direction,
and stop the fossil fuel industry from digging the hole so deep we
can't get out. If we fail to do that, there will be ample
opportunity to feel guilty down the road.
1: And while I'm kvetching, PLEASE don't evince guilt about your
lifestyle with me. I'm a guilty slob too, and we get nowhere by
blaming ourselves for living our lives in the only energy system
there is. Yes, take personal responsibility and live more
sustainably. But don't do it out of penance or shame; do it to
regain your power and take back your money; do it with attitude. And
also be real: if we don't take collective responsibility as
citizens, confront egregious perpetrators, regain our power, and
wage a clean energy revolution, our vegan diets and LED bulbs won't
amount to much. Our sense of complicity and hypocrisy is a huge
albatross. I implore you to cast it off or morph it into ferocity.
Please read and share Bill McKibben's "The question I get asked the
most." My own take, with thanks to Naomi Oreskes and Kathleen Dean
Moore, is in "We have met the wrong enemy" - written in response to
trolls who swarmed around kayaktivists protesting the Polar Pioneer.
https://theconversation.com/can-bill-nye-or-any-other-science-show-really-save-the-world-76630
*Can Bill Nye - or any other science show - really save the world?*
But what deserves to be successful isn't always what ends up winning
hearts and minds in the real world. In fact, empirical data we
collected suggest that the viewership of such shows - even heavily
publicized and celebrity-endorsed ones - is small and made up of
people who are already highly educated, knowledgeable about science
and receptive to scientific evidence.
Today's fragmented and partisan media environment fosters selective
exposure and motivated reasoning - that is, viewers typically tune
in to programming that confirms their existing worldview. There are
few opportunities or incentives for audiences to engage with
scientific evidence in the media. All of this can propagate
misleading claims and deter audiences from accepting the conclusions
of sound science. And adoption of misinformation and alternative
facts is not a partisan problem. Policy debates questioning or
ignoring scientific consensus on vaccines, climate change and GMOs
have cut across different political camps.
After publication, "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" host Neil deGrasse
Tyson responded to this article in a comment.:
... You might instead ask how much worse everything might be, had
all these pop-science forces not been in play over these recent
years. How many more science deniers would we have? Or better yet,
sum the pop-science media forces and ask, "Who has seen none of
them?". My guess is that your analysis will require revision....
*http://mediamatters.org/video/2010/05/04/olbermann-names-will-krauthammer-in-worst-perso/164226**
This Day in Climate History May 4, 2010
<http://mediamatters.org/video/2010/05/04/olbermann-names-will-krauthammer-in-worst-perso/164226>
- from D.R. Tucker*
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann rips syndicated columnist George Will for
continuing to peddle myths about wind energy/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
////safely forward this email./
. *** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing. It
carries no graphics nor 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/20170504/2b9558f5/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list