[TheClimate.Vote] June 19, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue Jun 19 10:47:30 EDT 2018
/June 19, 2018/
[So just when is the perfect time to sell?]
*Flooding from sea level rise threatens over 300,000 US coastal homes -
study
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/17/sea-level-rise-impact-us-coastal-homes-study-climate-change>*
Climate change study predicts 'staggering impact' of swelling oceans on
coastal communities within next 30 years
Sea level risedriven by climate change
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/27/scientists-have-detected-an-acceleration-in-sea-level-rise>is
set to pose an existential crisis to many US coastal communities, with
new research finding that as many as 311,000 homes face being flooded
every two weeks within the next 30 years.
The swelling oceansare forecast repeatedly
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/mar/20/sea-level-rise-miami-and-atlantic-city-fight-to-stay-above-water-video>to
soak coastal residences collectively worth $120bn by 2045 if greenhouse
gas emissions are not severely curtailed, experts warn. This will
potentially inflict a huge financial and emotional toll on the half a
million Americans who live in the properties at risk of having their
basements, backyards, garages or living rooms inundated every other week...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/17/sea-level-rise-impact-us-coastal-homes-study-climate-change
[Bloomberg says]
*Climate Change May Already Be Hitting the Housing Market
<https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-climate-change-home-sales/>*
By Christopher Flavelle and Allison McCartney
June 18, 2018
Even as President Donald Trump downplays the importance of climate
change, there are signs that Americans may be taking it more
seriously-at least when it comes to buying a house.
Between 2007 and 2017, average home prices in areas facing the lowest
risk of flooding, hurricanes and wildfires have far outpaced those with
the greatest risk, according to figures compiled for Bloomberg News by
Attom Data Solutions, a curator of national property data. Homes in
areas most exposed to flood and hurricane risk were worth less last
year, on average, than a decade earlier.
Attom Data looked at the annual change in home prices and sales across
3,397 cities around the country, then divided those cities into five
groups based on their exposure to various types of natural disasters.
What they found suggests the threats of climate change are beginning to
register.
On average, home prices across the cities analyzed by Attom Data
increased 7.3 percent between 2007 and 2017. That figure masks deep
drops in vulnerable areas...
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-climate-change-home-sales/
[Great explanations - her quintessential statement
<https://youtu.be/wtmuBoolHQg?t=59m39s> is at 59m39s]
*Jennifer Francis: Crazy Weather and the Arctic Meltdown
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtmuBoolHQg>*
New England Aquarium - Video 66 minutes
Published on Mar 8, 2018
Jennifer Francis, Ph.D., Research Professor I, Department of Marine and
Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, speaks about the question on
everyone's minds: why is the weather so crazy? And is it related to
climate change?
In this presentation, Dr. Francis will explain new research that links
increasing extreme weather events with the rapidly warming and melting
Arctic during recent decades. Evidence suggests that Arctic warming is
causing weather patterns to become more persistent, which can lead to
extremes such as droughts, cold spells, heat waves, and some flooding
events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtmuBoolHQg
[Dave Roberts comments]
*We are almost certainly underestimating the economic risks of climate
change
<https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/8/17437104/climate-change-global-warming-models-risks>*
The models that inform climate policymaking are fatally flawed.
By David Roberts at drvoxdavid@vox.com Updated Jun 9, 2018, 7:24am EDT
One of the more vexing aspects of climate change politics and policy is
the longstanding gap between the models that project the physical
effects of global warming and those that project the economic impacts.
In a nutshell, even as the former deliver worse and worse news,
especially about a temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius or more, the
latter remain placid.
The famous DICE model created by Yale's William Nordhaus shows that a
6-degree rise in global average temperature - which the physical
sciences characterize as an unlivable hellscape - would only dent global
GDP by 10 percent.
Projections of modest economic impacts from even the most severe climate
change affect climate politics in a number of ways. For one thing, they
inform policy goals like those President Obama offered in Paris,
restraining their ambition. For another, they fuel the arguments of
"lukewarmers," those who say that the climate is warming but it's not
that big a problem. (Lukewarmism is the public stance of most Trump
Cabinet members.)
Climate hawks have long had the strong instinct that it's the economic
models, not the physical-science models, that are missing something -
that the current expert consensus about climate economic damages is far
too sanguine - but they often lack the vocabulary to do any more than
insist.
As it happens, that vocabulary exists. At this point, there is a fairly
rich literature on the shortcomings of the climate-economic models upon
which so much political weight rests....
- - - -
The IPCC is working on its next big report and still using models that
underestimate economic damages
The second paper, in Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, makes
the same point - commonly used models are underestimating the economic
impacts of climate change - in a slightly different way, to a different
audience.
The audience in this case is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which is preparing to pull together its Sixth Assessment
Report, to be released over 2021 and 2022. IPCC assessment reports are
hugely influential in global policymaking.
The models typically used to estimate effects are integrated assessment
models (IAMs), using an "expected utility function" - that is, they add
up effects based on their probability of occurring. Such models are
"integrated" in that they include economic and climate models in
interaction. The economy produces emissions, which feed into the climate
models, which produce effects, which are applied as a "damage function"
to the economic models...
- - - - -
There's a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo flying around in these
conversations about models, so it's important to step back and recall
the point of all this.
Policymakers want to know how much climate change will hurt the economy.
They want to know how much policies to fight climate change will cost.
Models provide them with answers. Right now, models are (inaccurately)
telling them that damage costs will be low and policy costs will be high.
Political mobilization on climate change is going to fight a headwind as
long as policymakers are getting those answers from models.
We need models that negatively weigh uncertainty, properly account for
tipping points, incorporate more robust and current technology cost
data, better differentiate sectors outside electricity, rigorously price
energy efficiency, and include the social and health benefits of
decarbonization.
One, such models would be more accurate, better at their task of
informing policymakers. And two, they would justify far more policy and
investment to fight climate change than has been seen to date in the US
or any other major economy. We shouldn't let the blind spots and
shortcomings of current models undermine political ambition.
Save the models, save the world.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/8/17437104/climate-change-global-warming-models-risks
[Air Quality Index is like the Heat Index, but for Ozone]
*Air Quality Guide for Ozone
<https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=pubs.aqiguideozone>*
Ground-level ozone is one of our nation's most common air pollutants.
Use the chart below to help reduce your exposure and protect your
health. For your local air quality, visit www.airnow.gov
view it at https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=pubs.aqiguideozone
- - - -
[Greensboro, North Carolina]
*Heat and Humidity Make it Feel Like 100 degrees This Week
<https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/weather/heat-and-humidity-make-it-feel-like-100-this-week/83-565183073>*
WFMYNews2.com-1
Keep in mind, air quality remains poor with high levels of ozone. A Code
Orange Air Quality Alert... A classic summer heatwave will be hitting
the Piedmont this week. Temperatures will combine with humidity to not
only make it uncomfortable, but potentially dangerous at times. Make
sure to stay hydrated and limit outdoor activity during the hottest part
of the day.
https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/weather/heat-and-humidity-make-it-feel-like-100-this-week/83-565183073
- - -
[academic study misses publication]
*Analysis of the Relationship between Ozone Pollution, Temperature, and
Human Health*
Institution: Yale University
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: September 1, 2007 through September 1, 2010
Objective:
Recent research has linked both extreme temperatures and elevated ozone
pollution to increased risk of mortality. However, several critical
questions regarding these relationships still remain. There is little
understanding regarding how temperature-mortality varies by region and
by factors such as air conditioning use and sensitive subpopulations.
Further, potential confounding by pollution has not been addressed on a
national scale. Ozone levels are higher during days with high
temperatures, so some of the excess mortality currently attributed to
high temperatures could be related to ozone.
Additionally, while ozone pollution and extreme temperatures are both
related to excess mortality, it is not yet known how much life
expectancy is lost as a result of these factors. Analysis of the
importance of short-term mortality displacement for ozone and
temperature will enable decision-makers to more effectively address the
public health burden of weather and ozone pollution. Also, since both
extreme temperatures and ozone pollution are anticipated to rise, on
average, with climatic change, an understanding of these relationships
will benefit research on the potential health consequences of climate
change.
{EPA no longer makes a final report available}
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/8559
- - - - -
[Ozone harms - TIME magazine]
*Why Big Heat = Bad Air
<http://science.time.com/2011/07/22/why-bad-heatbad-air/>*
By Bryan Walsh - Time - July 22, 2011
It's a little confusing. Isn't ozone a good thing, keeping us safe from
ultraviolet rays? It is-but only when that ozone is high in the
stratosphere. Closer to the ground, where we actually breathe, ozone is
real health threat, especially for children, the elderly and those with
respiratory problems. Asthma victims can be particularly sensitive-while
air pollution doesn't necessarily cause asthma, it can certainly make
life hell for those who suffer from it. Other studies indicate that
long-term exposure to ozone in childhood can lead to decreased lung
function as an adult, and ozone also leads to an estimated $500 million
in crop losses each year as well. Ozone actually seems to restrict
breathing pathways, as the EPA points out in a guide:
The major effect is thus restrictive rather than obstructive in
nature and reflects itself in decreases in forced vital capacity
(FVC), FEV1 and other spirometric measures that require a full
inspiration. Observed changes in breathing pattern to one with more
rapid shallow breathing may also be a manifestation of C-fiber
stimulation and may be a protective response to limit penetration of
ozone deep into the respiratory tract. It is likely that these lung
function changes and respiratory symptoms are responsible for
observations that short-term ozone exposure limits maximal exercise
capability.
You can also see ozone in a way that you can't for many other air
pollutants. That hazy hot sky above cities like New York and Washington
is due to ozone-related smog.
http://science.time.com/2011/07/22/why-bad-heatbad-air/
- - - -
[High heat suppresses ozone]
*The complex relationship between heat and ozone
<https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/04/the-complex-relationship-between-heat-and-ozone/>*
Unhealthy ozone days could increase by more than a week in coming decades
"Short-term exposure to ozone has been linked to adverse health
effects," said Loretta J. Mickley, a co-author of the study. "High
levels of ozone can exacerbate chronic lung disease and even increase
mortality rates."
While temperature has long been known as an important driver of ozone
episodes, it's been unclear how increasing global temperatures will
impact the severity and frequency of surface level ozone.
To address this question, Shen and Mickley - with co-author Eric
Gilleland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) -
developed a model that used observed relationships between temperature
and ozone to predict future ozone episodes.
Previous research had not relied so heavily on existing observations,
making projections uncertain. Shen and co-authors analyzed
ozone-temperature relationships at measurement sites across the United
States, and found them surprisingly complex.
"Typically, when the temperature increases, so does surface ozone," said
Mickley.
"Ozone production accelerates at high temperatures, and emissions of the
natural components of ozone increase. High temperatures are also
accompanied by weak winds, causing the atmosphere to stagnate. So the
air just cooks and ozone levels can build up."
However, at extremely high temperatures - beginning in the mid-90s
Fahrenheit - ozone levels at many sites stop rising with
temperature.*The phenomenon, previously observed only in California, is
known as ozone suppression.*
In order to better predict future ozone episodes, the team set out to
find evidence of ozone suppression outside of California and test
whether or not the phenomenon was actually caused by chemistry.
They found that 20 percent of measurement sites in the United States
show ozone suppression at extremely high temperatures. Their results
called into question the prevailing view that the phenomenon is caused
by complex atmospheric chemistry.
"Rather than being caused by chemistry, we found that this dropping off
of ozone levels is actually caused by meteorology," said Shen.
"Typically, ozone is tightly correlated with temperature, which in turn
is tightly correlated with other meteorological variables such as solar
radiation, circulation, and atmospheric stagnation. But at extreme
temperatures, these relationships break down."..
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/04/the-complex-relationship-between-heat-and-ozone/
[30 years ago into today]
*Global Warming Cooks Up 'A Different World' Over Three Decades
<https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/global-warming-cooks-world-decades-55968921>*
We were warned.
On June 23, 1988, a sultry day in Washington, James Hansen told Congress
and the world that global warming wasn't approaching - it had already
arrived. The testimony of the top NASA scientist, said Rice University
historian Douglas Brinkley, was "the opening salvo of the age of climate
change."
Thirty years later, it's clear that Hansen and other doomsayers were
right. But the change has been so sweeping that it is easy to lose sight
of effects large and small - some obvious, others less conspicuous.
Earth is noticeably hotter, the weather stormier and more extreme. Polar
regions have lost billions of tons of ice; sea levels have been raised
by trillions of gallons of water. Far more wildfires rage...
- - - -
"The biggest change over the last 30 years, which is most of my life, is
that we're no longer thinking just about the future," said Kathie Dello,
a climate scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis. "Climate
change is here, it's now and it's hitting us hard from all sides."
Warming hasn't been just global, it's been all too local. According to
an Associated Press statistical analysis of 30 years of weather, ice,
fire, ocean, biological and other data, every single one of the 344
climate divisions in the Lower 48 states - NOAA groupings of counties
with similar weather - has warmed significantly, as has each of 188
cities examined....
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/global-warming-cooks-world-decades-55968921
*- - - -
James Hansen Wishes He Wasn't So Right About Global Warming
<https://www.usnews.com/news/news/articles/2018-06-18/james-hansen-wishes-he-wasnt-so-right-about-global-warming>*
Thirty years after his historic testimony saying global warming is here
and a problem, scientist James Hansen wishes he was wrong about climate
change.
BY SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - James Hansen wishes he was wrong. He wasn't.
NASA's top climate scientist in 1988, Hansen warned the world on a
record hot June day 30 years ago that global warming was here and
worsening. In a scientific study that came out a couple months later, he
even forecast how warm it would get, depending on emissions of
heat-trapping gases.
The hotter world that Hansen envisioned in 1988 has pretty much come
true so far, more or less. Three decades later, most climate scientists
interviewed rave about the accuracy of Hansen's predictions given the
technology of the time.
Hansen won't say, "I told you so."
"I don't want to be right in that sense," Hansen told The Associated
Press, in an interview is his New York penthouse apartment. That's
because being right means the world is warming at an unprecedented pace
and ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are melting.
Hansen said what he really wishes happened is "that the warning be
heeded and actions be taken."
They weren't. Hansen, now 77, regrets not being "able to make this story
clear enough for the public."
Global warming was not what Hansen set out to study when he joined NASA
in 1972. The Iowa native studied Venus - a planet with a runaway
greenhouse-effect run - when he got interested in Earth's ozone hole. As
he created computer simulations, he realized that "this planet was more
interesting than Venus." And more important.
In his 1988 study, Hansen and colleagues used three different scenarios
for emissions of heat-trapping gases - high, low and medium. Hansen and
other scientists concentrated on the middle scenario.
Hansen projected that by 2017, the globe's five-year average temperature
would be about 1.85 degrees (1.03 degree Celsius) higher than the 1950
to 1980 NASA-calculated average. NASA's five-year average global
temperature ending in 2017 was 1.48 degrees above the 30-year average.
(He did not take into account that the sun would be cooling a tad, which
would reduce warming nearly two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit, said the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography's Jeff Severinghaus.)
Hansen also predicted a certain number of days of extreme weather -
temperature above 95 degrees, freezing days, and nights when the
temperatures that don't drop below 75 - per year for four U.S. cities in
the decade of the 2010s.
Hansen's forecast generally underestimated this decade's warming in
Washington, overestimated it in Omaha, was about right in New York and
mixed in Memphis.
Clara Deser, climate analysis chief at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, said Hansen's global temperature forecast was
"incredible" and his extremes for the cities were "astounding" in their
accuracy. Berkeley Earth's Zeke Hausfather gives Hansen's predictions a
7 or 8 for accuracy, out of 10; he said Hansen calculated that the
climate would respond a bit more to carbon dioxide than scientists now
think.
University of Alabama Huntsville's John Christy, a favorite of those who
downplay climate change, disagreed. Using mathematical formulas to
examine Hansen's projections, he concluded: "Hansen's predictions were
wrong as demonstrated by hypothesis testing."
Hansen had testified before Congress on climate change at a fall 1987
hearing that didn't get much attention - likely because it was a cool
day, he figured.
So the next hearing was scheduled for the next summer, and the weather
added heat to Hansen's words. At 2 p.m., the temperature hit a record
high 98 degrees and felt like 102.
It was then and there that Hansen went out on a limb and proclaimed that
global warming was already here. Until then most scientists merely
warned of future warming.
He left NASA in 2013, devoting more time to what he calls his
"anti-government job" of advocacy.
Hansen, still at Columbia University, has been arrested five times for
environmental protests. Each time, he hoped to go to trial "to draw
attention to the issues" but the cases were dropped. He writes about
saving the planet for his grandchildren, including one who is suing the
federal government over global warming inaction. His advocacy has been
criticized by scientific colleagues, but he makes no apologies.
"If scientists are not allowed to talk about the policy implications of
the science, who is going to do that? People with financial interests?"
Hansen asked.
https://www.usnews.com/news/news/articles/2018-06-18/james-hansen-wishes-he-wasnt-so-right-about-global-warming
*This Day in Climate History - June 19, 2003
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/us/report-by-epa-leaves-out-data-on-climate-change.html>
- from D.R. Tucker*
June 19, 2003: The New York Times reports:
"The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft
report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by
the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global
temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/us/report-by-epa-leaves-out-data-on-climate-change.html
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
///To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
/to news digest. /
*** 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/20180619/41a8b32c/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list