[TheClimate.Vote] February 1, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu Feb 1 09:29:44 EST 2018
/February 1, 2018/
[climate forecast Australia - video]
*Climate and Water Outlook, February-April 2018
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6fNZE7qi8>*
Bureau of Meteorology -The monthly Climate and Water Outlook video
covers rainfall, streamflow and temperature for the next three months.
For more detail, go to http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/
The next video will be available Thursday the 15th of February. .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6fNZE7qi8
[UK MET Office]
*Met Office warns of global temperature rise exceeding 1.5C limit
<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/31/met-office-warns-of-global-temperature-rise-exceeding-15c-limit>*
Met Office warns of global temperature rise exceeding 1.5C limit
In next five years greenhouse gases may push global warming past
threshold set by Paris deal
Global temperatures could break through the internationally agreed upper
1.5C limit within the next five years, according to a forecast by
British scientists that raises fresh questions about the world's efforts
to tackle climate change.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/31/met-office-warns-of-global-temperature-rise-exceeding-15c-limit
-
*Five-year forecast indicates further warming
<https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018>*
January 2018
A new forecast published by scientists at the Met Office indicates the
annual global average temperature is likely to exceed 1 degreeC and
could reach 1.5 degreeC above pre-industrial levels during the next five
years (2018-2022).
There is also a small (around 10%) chance that at least one year in the
period could exceed 1.5 degreeC above pre-industrial levels (1850-1900),
although it is not anticipated that it will happen this year. It is the
first time that such high values have been highlighted within these
forecasts.
Prof Stephen Belcher, Chief Scientist at the Met Office, said: "Given
we've seen global average temperatures around 1 degreeC above
pre-industrial levels over the last three years, it is now possible that
continued warming from greenhouse gases along with natural variability
could combine so we temporarily exceed 1.5 degreeC in the next five years."
*Video 2018 Decadal forecast <https://youtu.be/4qhaR2KU0sA>*
https://youtu.be/4qhaR2KU0sA
Professor Adam Scaife explains what the latest Met Office decadal
forecast could mean for global temperatures over the next five years.
https://youtu.be/4qhaR2KU0sA
Prof Scaife added that continued greenhouse gas emissions leading to
further warming would mean that the chances of seeing years at 1.5
degreeC or more would likely increase in future years.
The Met Office's decadal forecast is updated each year. The forecast
follows our announcement last year about the end of the slowdown, the
subsequent rapid warming and the run of record global temperatures in
the last few years.
The global temperatures quoted here are calculated relative to a
baseline of 1850-1900 providing a measure that is relative to the
pre-industrial period for comparison with the Paris ambition and target
to limit warming to 1.5 degreeC and well below 2 degreeC respectively
above pre-industrial levels.
Later this year the IPCC will publish a special report about the risks
of exceeding the 1.5 degreeC warming level and what might be done to
avoid it.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018
[2015 studies]
*Most discussions on climate change ignore these 10 basic facts about
human nature
<https://www.vox.com/2015/6/14/8767823/psychology-global-warming>*
By Lisa Bennett
I've spent nearly a decade thinking about why people get stuck on
climate change: stuck in debates, denial, what looks like indifference,
and the awful discomfort that comes with the question, "But what can I do?"
In search of answers, I've interviewed dozens of experts in psychology,
neuroscience, sociology, economics, political science, and other fields
- and many more Americans across a broad spectrum of political
affiliations, income brackets, and ages. I've also read widely to tap
the thinking of those who were once more commonly looked to for insights
into human nature, such as poets, philosophers, and spiritual leaders.
What I've come up with is my own climate-centric version of Robert
Fulghum's All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Climate
change has been my window into learning about human nature - or, at
least, about what we humans do when faced with a challenge much greater
than ourselves. The experience has also persuaded me that a better
understanding of our own nature can help inspire a more effective
response to what is happening to the natural world.
Here, then, are 10 things I've learned,
<https://www.vox.com/2015/6/14/8767823/psychology-global-warming> along
with some ideas about how these insights might be applied by those
working on climate change:
*1) We are overly optimistic about the future - our future, that is...*
*2) We can be blasé about the most important issues in the world
because the global perspective is way beyond ordinary human scale...*
*3) We are wired to refute imperatives...*
*4) We are vulnerable to peer pressure, especially about things that
confuse us..*
*5) We shy away from topics that remind us of our mortality but can
be motivated to take action on behalf of beings more vulnerable than
us...*
*6) We perceive and respond to risks only when we feel them...*
*7) We are motivated more by hope than by fear, at least in matters
of social change...*
*8) We are more likely to take action when we know precisely what we
can influence...*
*9) We need to believe our actions will make a difference...*
*10) We will continue to behave the same way we always have - even
after we know it is problematic - until there is a realistic
alternative...*
It is a safe bet that if you are reading this, you know that fossil
fuels contribute to climate change and yet you continue, either directly
or indirectly, to rely upon them, as most of us do.
But the reason for this, I have firmly come to believe, is not because
most people don't care, don't get it, or have been duped by climate
denial propaganda. I find a more believable reason in the words of
Thomas Kuhn, widely considered one of the most influential philosophers
of science of the 20th century. "People are unlikely to jettison an
unworkable paradigm, despite many indications it is not functioning
properly," Kuhn said, "until a better paradigm can be presented."
While individual behavior changes are essential, in other words, many of
them remain dependent on systemic public and private sector changes. To
fully succeed, we need a "moon shot"-style rapid transition to a clean
energy economy, like the one proposed last week by a group of scientists
and economists led by the UK's former chief scientist Sir David King.
But in the end, even the best of plans depends on understanding,
communicating, and acting with a fuller appreciation not just of the
state of the natural world but of our own nature, which means bringing
today's global climate story down to a human scale.
The good news is that doing so requires that we engage some of the best
aspects of human nature, including our ability to be present in the here
and now, to care more about people than about facts, to be drawn to hope
more than fear, to be willing to defend those weaker than us, and to
focus our actions on things that are in our control - all the while
being capable of believing in, even being thrilled by, the vision of a
moon shot.
Lisa Bennett, coauthor of Ecoliterate, is a writer and communications
strategist focused on climate change and what helps people rise to
challenges great and small. She blogs at lisabennett.org/blog and is on
Twitter at @LisaPBennett.
https://www.vox.com/2015/6/14/8767823/psychology-global-warming
-
*How People Update Beliefs about Climate Change: Good News and Bad News
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2821919>*
12 Pages
Sunstein, Bobadilla-Suarez, Lazzaro. Sharot
Date Written: September 2, 2016
*Abstract*
People are frequently exposed to competing evidence about climate
change. We examined how new information alters people's beliefs. We
find that people who doubt that man-made climate change is
occurring, and who do not favor an international agreement to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, show a form of asymmetrical updating: They
change their beliefs in response to unexpected good news (suggesting
that average temperature rise is likely to be less than previously
thought) and fail to change their beliefs in response to unexpected
bad news (suggesting that average temperature rise is likely to be
greater than previously thought). By contrast, people who strongly
believe that man-made climate change is occurring, and who favor an
international agreement, show the opposite asymmetry: They change
their beliefs far more in response to unexpected bad news
(suggesting that average temperature rise is likely to be greater
than previously thought) than in response to unexpected good news
(suggesting that average temperature rise is likely to be smaller
than previously thought). The results suggest that exposure to
varied scientific evidence about climate change may increase
polarization within a population due to asymmetrical updating. We
explore the implications of our findings for how people will update
their beliefs upon receiving new evidence about climate change, and
also for other beliefs relevant to politics and law.
Download the Paper
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2821919_code2488747.pdf?abstractid=2821919&mirid=1>
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2821919_code2488747.pdf?abstractid=2821919&mirid=1
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2821919
[Peter Sinclair]
*What's Wrong with "Beautiful Clean Coal"
<https://climatecrocks.com/2018/01/31/whats-wrong-with-beautiful-clean-coal/>*
Trump's shout-out to "clean coal" in the State of the Union address bore
little relationship to the reality that continues to play out in the
coal fields.
It's easy to say, "serves 'em right, they voted for a swindler, and
they're being swindled".
In fact, I'll be honest and say, that's my attitude right now, not just
toward coal miners, but anyone who debased themselves, and betrayed the
country, by voting for Trump.
..other perspective(s):
-
Huffington Post:
<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dont-tell-coal-country-thats-what-you-get-for-voting_us_5a2eb58ee4b0e5443a092a82>
Even before the US Senate recently confirmed President Trump's pick of a
former coal executive to head the U.S. Mine Safety and Health
Administration
<http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/360514-senate-confirms-trumps-mine-safety-pick>,
Appalachians were already bracing for the bitter taunts from
self-righteous liberals and environmentalists, "That's what you get for
voting for Trump."
We hear it. We don't like it. And attitudes such as these must change if
we ever hope to see change...
-
Reuters:
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retraining-insight/awaiting-trumps-coal-comeback-miners-reject-retraining-idUSKBN1D14G0>
WAYNESBURG, Pa. (Reuters) - When Mike Sylvester entered a career
training center earlier this year in southwestern Pennsylvania, he found
more than one hundred federally funded courses covering everything from
computer programming to nursing.
He settled instead on something familiar: a coal mining course.
"I think there is a coal comeback," said the 33-year-old son of a miner.
Despite broad consensus about coal's bleak future, a years-long effort
to diversify the economy of this hard-hit region away from mining is
stumbling, with Obama-era jobs retraining classes undersubscribed and
future programs at risk under President Donald Trump's proposed 2018 budget.
Trump has promised to revive coal by rolling back environmental
regulations and moved to repeal Obama-era curbs on carbon emissions from
power plants...
-
Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette:
<http://www.post-gazette.com/powersource/policy-powersource/2018/01/10/Is-the-coal-baron-s-Robert-Murray-s-wish-list-becoming-Trump-s-to-do-list/stories/201801090221>
Under Trump, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has also moved to
reconsider rules meant to protect miners from breathing coal and rock
dust - the primary cause of black lung disease - and diesel exhaust,
which can cause cancer.
Other Murray priorities, such as eliminating federal tax credits for
wind turbines and solar panels, have floundered, however. The renewable
energy tax breaks were largely retained in the final Republican-drafted
tax plan signed by Trump last month.
And despite Trump's campaign pledges to put scores of coal back to work
by ending what he and Murray have derided as Obama's "War on Coal," the
administration's regulatory rollback has thus far had modest economic
benefits.
Only about 500 coal mining jobs were added in Trump's first year,
bringing the total to about 50,900 nationally, according to the federal
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The nation's utilities have also continued
to shutter coal-fired plants in favor of those burning natural gas made
cheaper and more abundant by new drilling technologies...
-
Vox:
<https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/17/14951892/trump-budget-coal-country>
During the campaign, Donald Trump billed himself
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291041-trump-to-coal-country-this-election-is-the-last-shot-for>
as the "last shot" for coal country. He alone could save regions like
Appalachia that had long suffered from poverty and dwindling coal jobs.
And voters in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky believed him - choosing
Trump over Hillary Clinton by wide, wide margins.
So it's striking that President Trump's first budget proposal
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf>
would slash and burn several key programs aimed at promoting economic
development in coal regions - most notably, the Appalachian Regional
Commission <https://www.arc.gov/> and the Economic Development
Administration <https://www.eda.gov/>. In recent years, these programs
have focused on aiding communities that have been left behind as mining
jobs vanished...
https://climatecrocks.com/2018/01/31/whats-wrong-with-beautiful-clean-coal/
-
[video]
*Coal: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
<https://youtu.be/aw6RsUhw1Q8>*
We've heard a lot of talk about coal miners in the last year,
but what are the real issues surrounding coal?
John Oliver and a giant squirrel look into it.
https://youtu.be/aw6RsUhw1Q8
[BBC Trending]*
**'Chemtrail' conspiracy theorists: The people who think governments
control the weather <http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42195511>*
"Chemtrail" conspiracy theorists vary in their claims. But some of the
most popular include the belief that governments control the weather on
a massive scale, that scientists carrying out legitimate research about
how to counteract climate change through a process called
geo-engineering are secretly poisoning us, or even that secret powerful
groups are spraying us with chemicals to make us pliant and easy to
control...
But what most people call "contrails" Suzanne and other conspiracy
theorists call "chemtrails" - and in them they see evidence of a
clandestine globalist conspiracy involving a pick-and-mix selection of
the UN, the military, national governments, the Rothschilds, climate
scientists, pilots and big business...
A 2016 study by the Carnegie Institute for Science and the University of
California Irvine surveyed 77 leading atmospheric scientists and
geochemists. All but one, 98.7%, reported no evidence of a secret
large-scale atmospheric spraying programme. The one scientist who
dissented recorded unusually high levels of atmospheric barium in a
remote area with low levels of barium in the soil...
"Our goal is not to sway those already convinced that there is a secret,
large-scale spraying programme - who often reject counter evidence as
further proof of their theories - but rather to establish a source of
objective science that can inform public discourse," the study's authors
wrote...
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42195511
*This Day in Climate History February 1, 2007
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange>
- from D.R. Tucker*
February 1, 2007: The Guardian reports on a bizarre effort by the
American Enterprise
Institute to attack the credibility of the Fourth IPCC report, due to
be released the next day.
*Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
*Ian Sample, science correspondent
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby
group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to
undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an
ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush
administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the
shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely
regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change
science. It will underpin international negotiations on new
emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of
which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last
year and invited to comment.
Advertisement
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than
20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush
administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the
vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere,
attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and
dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported
by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully
explore the limitations of climate model outputs"....
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
///Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
/
//https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote
//////
/Send email to subscribe <a%20href=%22mailto:contact at theClimate.Vote%22>
to news clippings. /
*** 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/20180201/9b9ad773/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list