[TheClimate.Vote] January 2, 2018 -- Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue Jan 2 09:01:35 EST 2018
/January 2, 2018/
[theguardian]
*2017 was the hottest year on record without an El Nino, thanks to
global warming
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming>*
Climate scientists predicted the rapid rise in global surface
temperatures that we're now seeing
Video: 1964-2017 global surface temperature data from Nasa, divided into
El Nino (red), La Nina (blue), and neutral (black) years, with linear
trends added. <https://youtu.be/GorWMLSPC6I>
https://youtu.be/GorWMLSPC6I
In fact, 2017 was the hottest year without an El Nino by a wide margin -
a whopping 0.17 degrees C hotter than 2014, which previously held that
record. Remarkably, 2017 was also hotter than 2015, which at the time
was by far the hottest year on record thanks in part to a strong El Nino
event that year.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming
-
Chart of U.S. 2017 Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming#img-3>
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming#img-3
-
[Dana Nuccitelli]
*It's deja vu all over again*
Dana Nuccitelli - "I've been writing for the Guardian for almost 5 years
now, and every year I've had to write a similar headline or two":
*2013 was the second-hottest year without an El Nino since before 1850**
** Global warming made 2014 a record hot year**
** Record hot 2015 gave us a glimpse at the future of global warming**
** We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times**
** Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever
recorded**
** 2017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks to global
warming*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming
[theGuardian]
*Vehicles are now America's biggest CO2 source but EPA is tearing up
regulations
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/01/vehicles-climate-change-emissions-trump-administration>*
Transport overtook power generation for climate-warming emissions in
2017 but the Trump administration is reversing curbs on auto industry
pollution
For the first time in more than 40 years, the largest source of
greenhouse gas pollution in the US isn't electricity production but
transport - cars, trucks, planes, trains and shipping...
In the short term, this new approach risks a flashpoint between the
federal government and California, which has a long-held waiver to enact
vehicle pollution standards in excess of the national requirements.
Twelve other states, including New York and Pennsylvania, follow
California's standards, an alliance that covers more than 130 million
residents and about a third of the US vehicle market.
A flurry of recent optimistic studies have forecast that, by 2040, as
much as 90% of all cars in the US will be electric. But the current
conundrum is that petroleum-fueled vehicles are cheaper and seen as more
reliable than their electric counterparts by most new buyers
Nichols said she had been disturbed by signals coming from Pruitt and
other EPA officials that she said show the federal government is looking
to end California's waiver.
"Consumers in the US aren't pushing for electric vehicles to the extent
they are in Europe and unless we take a very different approach as a
country, that doesn't look like it will change soon.
"You will need to see a major change in battery technology to make it
viable. People are becoming more aware and concerned about global
warming, but we aren't there yet. And when you look at the vehicles
being put out by the major car companies, you could argue it's not an
issue for them, either."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/01/vehicles-climate-change-emissions-trump-administration
[Oil Industry History]
*On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil
industry about global warming
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming>*
Benjamin Franta
... new documents reveal that American oil writ large was warned of
global warming at its 100th birthday party.
It was a typical November day in New York City. The year: 1959...
...The nuclear weapons physicist Edward Teller had, by 1959, become
ostracized by the scientific community for betraying his colleague J.
Robert Oppenheimer, but he retained the embrace of industry and
government. Teller's task that November fourth was to address the crowd
on "energy patterns of the future," and his words carried an unexpected
warning:
Ladies and gentlemen, I am to talk to you about energy in the
future. I will start by telling you why I believe that the energy
resources of the past must be supplemented. First of all, these
energy resources will run short as we use more and more of the
fossil fuels. But I would [...] like to mention another reason why
we probably have to look for additional fuel supplies. And this,
strangely, is the question of contaminating the atmosphere. [....]
Whenever you burn conventional fuel, you create carbon dioxide.
[....] The carbon dioxide is invisible, it is transparent, you can't
smell it, it is not dangerous to health, so why should one worry
about it?
Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light
but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the
earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect
[....] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding
to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to
melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would
be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race
lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination
is more serious than most people tend to believe.
After his talk, Teller was asked to "summarize briefly the danger from
increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere in this century." The
physicist, as if considering a numerical estimation problem, responded:
At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per
cent over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8
per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [about 360 parts per million, by
Teller's accounting], if we keep on with our exponential rise in the
use of purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a
serious additional impediment for the radiation leaving the earth.
Our planet will get a little warmer. It is hard to say whether it
will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit or only one or 5.
But when the temperature does rise by a few degrees over the whole
globe, there is a possibility that the icecaps will start melting
and the level of the oceans will begin to rise. Well, I don't know
whether they will cover the Empire State Building or not, but anyone
can calculate it by looking at the map and noting that the icecaps
over Greenland and over Antarctica are perhaps five thousand feet thick.
And so, at its hundredth birthday party, American oil was warned of its
civilization-destroying potential...
How did the petroleum industry respond? Eight years later, on a cold,
clear day in March, Robert Dunlop walked the halls of the U.S. Congress.
The 1967 oil embargo was weeks away, and the Senate was investigating
the potential of electric vehicles. Dunlop, testifying now as the
Chairman of the Board of the American Petroleum Institute, posed the
question, "tomorrow's car: electric or gasoline powered?" His preferred
answer was the latter:
We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a
practical electric car can be mass-produced and marketed, it will
not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint.
Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been
controlled.
Dunlop went on to describe progress in controlling carbon monoxide,
nitrous oxide, and hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles. Absent from
his list? The pollutant he had been warned of years before: carbon dioxide.
We might surmise that the odorless gas simply passed under Robert
Dunlop's nose unnoticed. But less than a year later, the American
Petroleum Institute quietly received a report on air pollution it had
commissioned from the Stanford Research Institute, and its warning on
carbon dioxide was direct:
Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the
year 2000, and these could bring about climatic changes. [...] there
seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment
could be severe. [...] pollutants which we generally ignore because
they have little local effect, CO2 and submicron particles, may be
the cause of serious world-wide environmental changes.
Thus, by 1968, American oil held in its hands yet another notice of its
products' world-altering side effects, one affirming that global warming
was not just cause for research and concern, but a reality needing
corrective action: "Past and present studies of CO2 are detailed," the
Stanford Research Institute advised. "What is lacking, however, is [...]
work toward systems in which CO2 emissions would be brought under control."
This early history illuminates the American petroleum industry's
long-running awareness of the planetary warming caused by its products.
Teller's warning, revealed in documentation I found while searching
archives, is another brick in a growing wall of evidence.
In the closing days of those optimistic 1950s, ...the American Petroleum
Institute... was denying the climate science it had been informed of
decades before, attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
and fighting climate policies wherever they arose.
This is a history of choices made, paths not taken, and the fall from
grace of one of the greatest enterprises - oil, the "prime mover" - ever
to tread the earth. Whether it's also a history of redemption, however
partial, remains to be seen.
American oil's awareness of global warming - and its conspiracy of
silence, deceit, and obstruction - goes further than any one company. It
extends beyond (though includes) ExxonMobil. The industry is implicated
to its core by the history of its largest representative, the American
Petroleum Institute.
It is now too late to stop a great deal of change to our planet's
climate and its global payload of disease, destruction, and death. But
we can fight to halt climate change as quickly as possible, and we can
uncover the history of how we got here. There are lessons to be learned,
and there is justice to be served.
Benjamin Franta (@BenFranta) is a PhD student in history of science at
Stanford University who studies the history of climate change science
and politics. He has a PhD in applied physics from Harvard University
and is a former research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming
-
Exxon's Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too
<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco>
Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included
scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco
and Shell
[bad air]
*Study: Even "Legal" Air Pollution Is Killing Older Americans
<http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/study-even-legal-air-pollution-is-killing-older-americans/>*
Nathalie Baptiste, MotherJones
People of color, women, and individuals eligible for Medicaid are at
even greater risk.
More than 3 million people
<https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/16/440646997/dont-take-a-deep-breath-outdoor-pollution-kills-3-3-million-a-year>
worldwide die prematurely every year because of air pollution—most from
cardiovascular diseases
<https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/16/440646997/dont-take-a-deep-breath-outdoor-pollution-kills-3-3-million-a-year>,
respiratory illnesses, and lung cancer. In the United States, the Clean
Air Act <https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act> was
signed into law in 1970 to regulate air pollution and create air quality
standards that protect human health. But according to a new study
<https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2667069?redirect=true>in
the Journal of the American Medical Association, for some Americans,
especially those aged 65 and older, those standards may be inadequate.
"We found that the mortality rate increases almost linearly as air
pollution increases," Francesca Dominici, senior author of the study and
co-director of the Harvard Data Science Initiative, said in a press release.
Researchers studied more than 22 million deaths among Medicare
recipients—the federal health insurance program for Americans aged 65
and up—from 2000 to 2012. In reviewing data from the US Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services and comparing it with air pollution data
in zip codes where individuals died, they found a direct correlation
between higher mortality rates and higher levels of fine inhalable
matter known as (PM2.5),
<https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM> small
particles that can be made up of hundreds different chemicals that can
be emitted from cars or from construction sites, and ozone, a harmful
gas
<https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution-and-your-patients-health/what-ozone>.
..
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/study-even-legal-air-pollution-is-killing-older-americans/
-
What is PM, and how does it get into the air?
<https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM>
https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM
-
Air Now <https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.main>
https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.main
-
Summary of the Clean Air Act
<https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act>
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act
-
Association of Short-term Exposure to Air Pollution With Mortality in
Older Adults
<https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2667069?redirect=true>
*Question* What is the association between short-term exposure to air
pollution below current air quality standards and all-cause mortality?
*Finding * In a case-crossover study of more than 22 million deaths,
each 10-μg/m3 daily increase in fine particulate matter and
10-parts-per-billion daily increase in warm-season ozone exposures were
associated with a statistically significant increase of 1.42 and 0.66
deaths per 1 million persons at risk per day, respectively.
Meaning Day-to-day changes in fine particulate matter and ozone
exposures were significantly associated with higher risk of all-cause
mortality at levels below current air quality standards, suggesting that
those standards may need to be reevaluated.
*Importance * The US Environmental Protection Agency is required to
reexamine its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) every 5
years, but evidence of mortality risk is lacking at air pollution levels
below the current daily NAAQS in unmonitored areas and for sensitive
subgroups.
*Objective *To estimate the association between short-term exposures to
ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone, and at levels below
the current daily NAAQS, and mortality in the continental United States.
*Design, Setting, and Participants* Case-crossover design and
conditional logistic regression to estimate the association between
short-term exposures to PM2.5 and ozone (mean of daily exposure on the
same day of death and 1 day prior) and mortality in 2-pollutant models.
The study included the entire Medicare population from January 1, 2000,
to December 31, 2012, residing in 39 182 zip codes.
*Exposures * Daily PM2.5 and ozone levels in a 1-km × 1-km grid were
estimated using published and validated air pollution prediction models
based on land use, chemical transport modeling, and satellite remote
sensing data. From these gridded exposures, daily exposures were
calculated for every zip code in the United States. Warm-season ozone
was defined as ozone levels for the months April to September of each year.
*Main Outcomes and Measures * All-cause mortality in the entire Medicare
population from 2000 to 2012.
*Results* During the study period, there were 22 433 862 million case
days and 76 143 209 control days. Of all case and control days, 93.6%
had PM2.5 levels below 25 μg/m3, during which 95.2% of deaths occurred
(21 353 817 of 22 433 862), and 91.1% of days had ozone levels below 60
parts per billion, during which 93.4% of deaths occurred (20 955 387 of
22 433 862). The baseline daily mortality rates were 137.33 and 129.44
(per 1 million persons at risk per day) for the entire year and for the
warm season, respectively. Each short-term increase of 10 μg/m3 in PM2.5
(adjusted by ozone) and 10 parts per billion (10−9) in warm-season ozone
(adjusted by PM2.5) were statistically significantly associated with a
relative increase of 1.05% (95% CI, 0.95%-1.15%) and 0.51% (95% CI,
0.41%-0.61%) in daily mortality rate, respectively. Absolute risk
differences in daily mortality rate were 1.42 (95% CI, 1.29-1.56) and
0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.78) per 1 million persons at risk per day. There
was no evidence of a threshold in the exposure-response relationship.
*Conclusions and Relevance* In the US Medicare population from 2000 to
2012, short-term exposures to PM2.5 and warm-season ozone were
significantly associated with increased risk of mortality. This risk
occurred at levels below current national air quality standards,
suggesting that these standards may need to be reevaluated.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2667069?redirect=true
/[High Geek Factor warning]/
[RealClimate from April 2017 - /soon to be updated/ ]
*Climate model projections compared to observations
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/>*
Since we have been periodically posting updates (e.g. 2009
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/>,
2010
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/>,
2011
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/>,
2012
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/>,
2015
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/>,
2016
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/>)
of model output comparisons to observations across a range of variables,
we have now set up this page as a permanent placeholder for the most
up-to-date comparisons. We include surface temperature projections from
1981, 1988, CMIP3, CMIP5, and satellite products (MSU) from CMIP5, and
*we will update this on an annual basis*, or as new observational
products become available. For each comparison, we note the last update
date.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
-
[See also from April 2012]
*Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection
<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/>**
*Sometimes it helps to take a step back from the everyday pressures of
research (falling ill helps). It was in this way we stumbled across
Hansen et al (1981) (pdf). In 1981 the first author of this post was in
his first year at university and the other just entered the KNMI after
finishing his masters. Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI
where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why
the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second
author. It turns out to be a very interesting read.
They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover
radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main
feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation
albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol
forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Obviously climate science was a mature
field even then: the concepts and conclusions have not changed all that
much. Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which
still stands today) and what was uncertain.
Next they attribute global mean temperature trend 1880-1980 to CO2,
volcanic and solar forcing. Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives a
projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time when
the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature
still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a
rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. They assume that no
action will be taken before the global warming signal will be
significant in the late 1990s, so the different energy-use scenarios
only start diverging after that.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/
[Caribbean community]
*Caricom moving to create world's first climate-resilient region
<http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/caricom-moving-to-create-world-8217-s-first-climate-resilient-region_121376?profile=1373>*
PORT AU PRINCE, Haiti (CMC) — Incoming chairman of the Caribbean
Community (Caricom), Haiti's President Jovenel Moïse, says the regional
grouping is moving towards creating the world's first climate-resilient
region this year.
"2018 dawns for the Caribbean Community with the prospect of seizing an
opportunity out of a crisis," said Moïse in his New Year's message.
"As we begin the rebuilding process after the devastating hurricanes of
last September, as well as Hurricane Matthew, which pounded the region
on October 3-4, 2016, we do so with the aim of creating the first
climate-resilient region in the world.
"The absolute necessity to create a climate-smart region is clear given
the effects of climate change, which have brought us droughts, mega
hurricanes, heavy floods and unusual weather patterns, all of which
adversely affect our development," he added.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/caricom-moving-to-create-world-8217-s-first-climate-resilient-region_121376?profile=1373
[reposting clip]
*Study predicts a significantly drier world at 2 C
<https://phys.org/news/2018-01-significantly-drier-world.html>*
Over a quarter of the world's land could become significantly drier if
global warming reaches 2C - according to new research from an
international team including the University of East Anglia.
The change would cause an increased threat of drought and wildfires.
But limiting global warming to under 1.5C would dramatically reduce the
fraction of the Earth's surface that undergoes such changes.
The findings, published today in Nature Climate Change, are the result
of an international collaboration led by the Southern University of
Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen China and UEA.
Aridity is a measure of the dryness of the land surface, obtained from
combining precipitation and evaporation. The research team studied
projections from 27 global climate models to identify the areas of the
world where aridity will substantially change when compared to the
year-to-year variations they experience now, as global warming reaches
1.5C and 2C above pre-industrial levels....
More information: Keeping global warming within 1.5 degree C constrains
emergence of aridification, Nature Climate Change (2018).
nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0034-4
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-significantly-drier-world.html
*This Day in Climate History January 2, 2014
<http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/theres-global-warming-and-its-snowing-105637955899>
- from D.R. Tucker*
MSNBC's Chris Hayes and climate scientist Michael Mann point out the
absolute stupidity of the right-wing claim that snow disproves climate
change.
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/right-mocks-rescued-climate-scientists-105626691902
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/theres-global-warming-and-its-snowing-105637955899
/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20180102/56443447/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list