[TheClimate.Vote] October 7, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sun Oct 7 11:02:25 EDT 2018
/October 7, 2018/
[mean]
*Earth's climate monsters could be unleashed as temperatures rise
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/oct/06/earths-climate-monsters-could-be-unleashed-as-temperatures-rise>*
Graham Readfearn
As a UN panel prepares a report on 1.5C global warming, researchers warn
of the risks of ignoring 'feedback' effects
Fri 5 Oct 2018
This week, hundreds of scientists and government officials from more
than 190 countries have been buzzing around a convention centre in the
South Korean city of Incheon.
They are trying to agree on the first official release of a report - the
bit called the Summary for Policymakers - that pulls together all of
what's known about how the world might be affected once global warming
gets to 1.5C.
- - -
On Monday morning, the summary document is expected to be released, and
there will be a cascade of headlines around the world.
The report, being pulled together by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was one tiny part of the
Paris climate change agreement.
From London to Shanghai, world's sinking cities face devastating floods
Read more
As things stand, if you add up all the things that the 190-plus
countries have committed to do as part of that Paris deal, global
temperatures will probably go well above 3C.
We're already at 1C of warming, so the extra half a degree isn't far
away - many scientists will say it's already locked in, while others say
there are plausible ways to stabilise temperatures at that level.
But in August, one of the world's leading scientific journals - the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - published a
"perspective" article that has become known as the "hothouse earth" paper.
There was no new science in the paper and while it was speculative, it
did raise fundamental questions about the ability of governments around
the world to stop the Earth from spiralling into a "hothouse".
"I think the dominant linear, deterministic framework for assessing
climate change is flawed" - Will Steffen
- - - - -
The problem lies with "feedbacks" - in the "supplementary information"
attached to the paper, Steffen and colleagues actually listed 10 of
them. With each, they include estimates of how much extra CO2 and
temperature they could add once you hit about 2C of global warming.
For example, the ability of the land and ocean to keep soaking up CO2
could weaken, giving you an extra 0.25C of warming. Dieback of trees in
the Amazon and subarctic could give us another 0.1C.
Permafrost, which is already starting to defy its name by not being all
that permanent, could release ever more methane and carbon that might
add a bit more warming again (0.09C is the estimate there).
The point is that once you add them all up, you get close to 0.5C of
warming by the end of the century. Given we're already at 1C of global
warming, that makes the job of keeping warming "well below 2C" or even
holding it at 1.5C much, much harder than it already is.
And there's the rub.
While governments have the means to affect how much CO2 gets released
through policies that radically cut the use of fossil fuels, it would be
much harder to get a grip on thawing permafrosts, mass forest collapses
or the loss of polar sea ice.
By failing to get a grip on a thing that's feasibly under your control,
we end up risking the release a whole gang of other monsters that we can't.
This gets us to another big issue, says Steffen, because climate models
don't include some of these feedbacks. In essence, the warmer things
get, the less reliable the models become.
He tells me: "I think the dominant linear, deterministic framework for
assessing climate change is flawed, especially at higher levels of
temperature rise.
So, yes, model projections using models that don't include these
processes indeed become less useful at higher temperature levels. Or, as
my co-author John Schellnhuber says, we are making a big mistake when we
think we can "park" the Earth System at any given temperature rise - say
2C - and expect it to stay there."
For those who understand the idea of a carbon budget - where scientists
have calculated him much CO2 you could emit before hitting certain
temperature rises - it looks even meaner than before if Steffen and his
colleagues are right.
But as they also point out, several of these feedbacks might have
"tipping points" that then set off a cascade of other issues. Steffen says:
"Even at the current level of warming of about 1C above
pre-industrial, we may have already crossed a tipping point for one of
the feedback processes (Arctic summer sea ice), and we see instabilities
in others - permafrost melting, Amazon forest dieback, boreal forest
dieback and weakening of land and ocean physiological carbon sinks.
And we emphasise that these processes are not linear and often have
built-in feedback processes that generate tipping point behaviour. For
example, for melting permafrost, the chemical process that decomposes
the peat generates heat itself, which leads to further melting and so on."
For the record, Steffen thinks the assumptions in climate models that
cuts in fossil fuel emissions will deliver relative cuts in temperatures
"is OK for perhaps lower temperature rises of 1.5 or 2C" but beyond
that, he's sceptical.
- - -
Dr Glen Peters, an Australian scientist and climate modeller based at
the Centre for International Climate Research in Norway, also thought
some of the media coverage went too far with the doomsday vibe.
But he told me that while it was true that many of the feedbacks in the
paper were not well covered by climate models, this was partly because
they were not that well understood.
I'll leave you with his thoughts:
"The hothouse earth paper conjectures that many of these feedbacks
may interact like a domino effect, lead the Earth system to spiral
out of control to reach a new steady state very different from
today, and these processes may even start if we are successful at
meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement."
"There is also an important timescale question, are we talking
decades or millennia, and that is very important for how society may
respond. While all the claims made in the hothouse earth paper are
justified, we simply don't have the data to verify if those claims
are true. While the paper put in plenty of language to indicate its
exploratory nature … many headlines and statements went too far,
indicating we had already gone too far and there was no turning back."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/oct/06/earths-climate-monsters-could-be-unleashed-as-temperatures-rise
- - - -
[here's a comment from that Guardian article ]
Kickthismobout
Guardian Pick
I can tell you where I live about 1 hour out of Melbourne
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/oct/06/earths-climate-monsters-could-be-unleashed-as-temperatures-rise#comment-121195255>
people are crapping their pants for what we have coming, It is as dry as
sin here, many sensible folk have bush fire plans in action right now.
From farmers to an old aboriginal man I know, they say the signs are
there, the roos are everywhere as they come down from the dry hills for
food, the freeways and main roads have their dead bodies strewn all over
the side of them as they are hit by traffic. I often have over 100 just
in a small paddock behind me, never before have I seen this, maybe later
in the season, but not now, not this early.
The aboriginal man I know says you don't see any duckings, magpies now
as active defending their nests, they know we are in for a scorcher,
that is his take I can only listen to his words.
Farmers are moaning about lack or rain, everywhere you walk the ground
crunches under your feet, dams that rely on run off are at their lowest,
I know mine are.
Yet still we have this debate, this waffle, what kind of disaster will
take to wake our bloody leaders up?
Figures for bush fires:
Between 1900 and 1970 there were 13 Major bush fires, which is 1.85
per decade.
1970 - 1980 - 4 Major bush fires
1980 - 1990 - 3 Major bush fires
1990 - 2000 - 7 Major bush fires
2000 - 2010 - 16 Major bush fires
2010 - 2016 - 25 Major bush fires (15 Major bush fires in total,
averaged out over projected decade, could be more).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/oct/06/earths-climate-monsters-could-be-unleashed-as-temperatures-rise#comment-121195255
[The Nation gives advice]
*Planet Earth Is Doomed. How Do I Go On?
<https://www.thenation.com/article/planet-earth-is-doomed-how-do-i-go-on/>*
By Liza Featherstone
Dear Liza,
With the recent heat waves and other climate-related problems, I
have become anxious and despondent about the future. In fact, I am
doubtful there will be much of one in 10 or 20 years. My anxiety
often keeps me glued to my computer, looking at more and more
stories, which tend to get more and more extreme. I have started
reading reports of human extinction within the next century, if not
sooner.
I sometimes look for articles about the climate crisis that are more
positive; but, at best, that gives me a temporary reprieve from the
general tenor of the coverage. It makes it almost impossible to do
my work. And I can't avoid these stories, as I teach a
community-college course on sustainability. I have even contemplated
suicide. What should I do?
--Doomed and Gloomed
Dear Doomed,
You are not alone. Andrew Samuels, a Jungian psychoanalyst and a
professor at the University of Essex, tells me that therapists are
increasingly hearing from patients who are deeply disturbed by climate
change and are struggling to cope.
First, get professional help. Call a suicide hotline whenever you think
of taking your own life. Samuels points out that you seem to suffer from
depression as well as anxiety. Depression is bound up in loss: You may
be mourning the planet and humanity as you might mourn the death of a
parent. Therapy helps with depression, and it could also help change
your addictive relationship to the Internet.
Depression is also related to guilt. It "stems from ideas that one has
damaged or destroyed a loved other," Samuels observes. "That's why a
normal depression follows a bereavement. There is always more that could
have been done." Sometimes we absorb neoliberal guilt over the
environment--the feeling that climate change is our fault because we
drive a car or order from Amazon. "I think it is crucial not to take
full responsibility for what we have done to the planet," Samuels says.
"Sure, some individuals in the corporate and political worlds are
particularly careless and hence responsible. But this doesn't apply to
most of us."
It's hard to think of a more collective problem than climate change. Yet
you seem to experience it as yours alone. Reading your letter, Samuels
observes: "This person seems so cut off and alone, an atomized citizen."
Climate change is too much for you--or any one of us--to handle. Alone,
we can neither cope with it emotionally nor save humanity from its worst
effects. "Part of the problem is that climate change seems so big that
it's hard to conceive that any individual action on our part could
work," the author and environmental activist Bill McKibben points out.
"When people ask me, 'What can I, as an individual, do to save the
planet?,' I say, 'The most important thing you can do is be less of an
individual.'"
In other words: Become part of the environmental movement. Wherever you
live, yes, people are composting (which can certainly be helpful,
especially when multiplied millions of times), but even more
encouraging, they are organizing to put pressure on corporations to stop
polluting and on governments to change policy. This is making a
difference. As McKibben notes: "We've won a ton of fights. There are
lots of pipelines and coal ports that are not getting built. We're
increasingly powerful."
When you join this movement, you'll help the planet and yourself. When
you meet your fellow activists, Samuels urges, admit to some of the
feelings you've described in your letter. They will empathize; some of
them have been there, too. "Just you and your computer is not a
productive and creative state of affairs," Samuels insists. "Activism is
good for your mental health."
I, too, suffer from anxiety over the future of the planet, so your
letter has been a hard one for me to live with and to answer. One of the
reasons we feel anxious, though, is that we don't know what is going to
happen. If we knew that we were facing extinction within our century, we
would give up and grieve--or party in a bacchanalian fashion. But we
don't know. For people prone to anxiety like ourselves, this uncertainty
is hard to tolerate. But within that uncertainty lies a measured but
radiant hope.
"Some things are going much better than we thought they would," McKibben
says. To give just one example, the price of solar panels has fallen by
90 percent. "Everything points to: If we want to solve this problem, we
can."
This kind of optimism is not denial. "We're not going to be able to stop
global warming," McKibben acknowledges. "But we may be able to save the
civilization that our forebears have built."
To do that, we need to reject despair and start fighting together--for
future humans and for ourselves.
https://www.thenation.com/article/planet-earth-is-doomed-how-do-i-go-on/
[Sarcasm humor video]
*The Nib: You Killed Smokey | 209.4 <https://youtu.be/MUEtqAnPoP4>*
Published on Jul 12, 2018
Give a hoot!
The political cartoonists of The Nib have teamed up for a new animated
series that strikes at the heart of our present-day dystopia. In Season
1 we took you inside the sweatshop that produces Trump's hair, met the
brave, rich, white men who strip away our reproductive rights, and got
an exclusive look at our Illuminati lizard overlords. Now Season 2 is
here, and you're not wrong: things are definitely getting weirder and
worse, so we're in for lots more fun. Featuring sizzling satire from the
likes of Matt Bors, Jen Sorensen, Matt Lubchansky, Emily Flake, and
Keith Knight.
https://youtu.be/MUEtqAnPoP4
[blame the media, really blame them]
*How the media encourages -- and sustains -- political warfare
<http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/09/how-the-media-encourages-and-sustains-political-warfare/?theclimate.vote>*
Oppositional framing in news stories encourages oppositional thinking in
news audiences.
By KYLE JENSEN AND JACK SELZER Sept. 28, 2018, 9 a.m.
Since his inauguration, President Donald Trump has been waging war
against the American press by dismissing unfavorable reports as "fake
news" and calling the media "the enemy of the American people." As a
countermeasure, The Washington Post has publicly fact-checked every
claim that Trump has labeled as fake. In August, The Boston Globe
coordinated editorials from newspapers across the nation to push back
against Trump's attacks on the press. The Associated Press characterized
this effort as the declaration of a "war of words" against Trump.
News organizations might frame themselves as the besieged party in this
"war." But what if they're as much to blame as the president in this
back-and-forth? And what if readers are to blame as well?
In an unpublished manuscript titled The War of Words, the late
rhetorical theorist and cultural critic Kenneth Burke cast the media as
agents of political warfare. In 2012, we found this manuscript in
Burke's papers and, after working closely with Burke's family and the
University of California Press, it will be published next week.
In The War of Words, Burke urges readers to recognize the role they also
play in sustaining polarization. He points to how seemingly innocuous
features in a news story can actually compromise values readers might
hold, whether it's debating the issues further, finding points of
consensus, or, ideally, avoiding war.
A book born out of the Cold War
In 1939, just before Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, Burke wrote an
influential essay, "The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle,'" in which he
outlined how Hitler had weaponized language to foment antipathy,
scapegoat Jews, and unite Germans against a common enemy.
After World War II ended and America's leaders turned their attention to
the Soviet Union, Burke saw some parallels to Hitler in the way language
was being weaponized in the United States. He worried that the U.S.
might remain on a permanent wartime footing and that a drumbeat of
oppositional rhetoric directed at the Soviet Union was making the nation
susceptible to slipping into yet another war.
Tormented by this possibility, he published two books, A Grammar of
Motives and A Rhetoric of Motives, in which he sought to to inoculate
Americans from the sort of political speech that, in his view, could
lead to a nuclear holocaust.
The War of Words was originally supposed to be part of A Rhetoric of
Motives. But at the last minute, Burke decided to set it aside and
publish it later. Unfortunately, he never ended up publishing it before
his death in 1993.
The thesis of The War of Words is simple and, in our view, holds up
today: Political warfare is ubiquitous, unrelenting, and inevitable.
News coverage and commentary are frequently biased, whether journalists
and readers are aware of it or not. And all media coverage, therefore,
demands careful scrutiny.
To Burke, you don't have to launch social media missives in order to
participate in sustaining a polarized political environment. Instead,
the quiet consumption of news reporting is enough to do the trick...
- - - -
"Imagine a passage built about a set of oppositions ('we do this, but
they on the other hand do that; we stay here, but they go there; we look
up, but they look down,' etc.)," he wrote. "Once you grasp the trend of
the form, [you see that] it invites participation regardless of the
subject matter…you will find yourself swinging along with the succession
of antitheses, even though you may not agree with the proposition that
is being presented in this form."
Burke calls this phenomenon "collaborative expectancy" -- collaborative
because it encourages us to swing along together, and "expectancy"
because of the predictability of each side's argument. This
predictability encourages readers to embrace an argument without
considering whether we find it persuasive. They simply sit on one of two
opposing sides and nod along.
According to Burke, if you passively consume the news, swinging along
with headlines as the midterms unfold, political divisions will likely
be further cemented. However if you become aware of how the media
reports you're consuming seek to subtly position and influence you,
you'll likely seek out more sources and become more deliberative. You
might notice what's missing from a debate, and what really might be
motivating the outlet.
To avoid getting sucked into a dynamic of two opposing, gridlocked
forces, it's important for all readers to make their consciousness a
matter of conscience.
Kyle Jensen is an associate professor of English at the University of
North Texas. Jack Selzer is a professor of literature at Penn State.
This article is republished from The Conversation.The Conversation
http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/09/how-the-media-encourages-and-sustains-political-warfare/?theclimate.vote
[Blurb for Young adult climate fiction]
*A Climate Change Call to Action for Young Adults -- South Branch Press
<https://menafn.com/1097532691/A-Climate-Change-Call-to-Action-for-Young-AdultsSouth-Branch-Press>*
Award-winning environmental writer Ned Tillman's new YA novel offers
young readers a practical, inspirational blueprint for how to deal with
the challenges of global climate
COLUMBIA, Md. - Oct. 4, 2018 - PRLog -- Three-quarters of Americans
believe that there is solid evidence of climate change.
What can we do about it? More importantly, what can young adults, who
will face its consequences head on, do about it?
Award-winning environmental writer Ned Tillman's new YA novel The Big
Melt gives an unequivocal and inspirational answer.
The Big Melt is set in the fictional town of Sleepy Valley, which is
similar in many ways to the town where you live. Things seem fine, but
no one is thinking about the future. Protagonists Marley and Brianne
wake up the day after their high school graduation, their lives are
turned upside down, and their plans for the future changed forever. A
series of climate catastrophes descends on Sleepy Valley, and Marley and
Brianne must struggle to save their town and the world as they know it.
Through their struggles, they find their voices and purposes for living.
"People say it's too big of a problem, and wonder how they can possibly
make a difference," Tillman told a Baltimore Sun reviewer.
The Big Melt shows its readers that their actions do matter. It
challenges us all to confront what is rapidly becoming the greatest
threat of the 21st century. This work of contemporary fiction will
inspire you to care, more than ever, about what could happen in your
town in the not-too-distant future.
"Hope is woven all through this book and we need that," said
environmental educator Ann Strozyk.
A Publishers Weekly / Booklife review said, "Tillman's novel is
certainly inspiring and unique…with a firm call to action for young
people."
The Big Melt provides a list of a list of Earth-friendly actions that
readers can utilize in their own lives, as well as a discussion guide to
help spark conversation in classrooms and reading groups.
Can fiction help save the Earth?
Tillman told a reviewer, "If readers identify with the people in the
story and get inspired, I believe that it's just one more tool to get us
to where we need to be."
https://menafn.com/1097532691/A-Climate-Change-Call-to-Action-for-Young-AdultsSouth-Branch-Press
[Opinion from Seattle]
*I sued the state of Washington because I can't breathe there. They
ignored me
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/i-sued-the-state-of-washington-because-i-cant-breathe-there-they-ignored-me?CMP=share_btn_link>*
Jamie Margolin
Summers in my home city of Seattle didn't use to be smoggy to the point
that they make me and my friends sick. Now they are - and that violates
our rights
- - - - -
There was a week in August where I didn't dare to step outside. It was
grey 24/7 - not from clouds, but from smoke. If I went outside, it hurt
to breathe, the air smelled funny, and I got a headache and sore throat.
This is not the way it used to be in my hometown.
I'm able bodied, so for my friends with chronic health conditions, it's
even worse. A few had to go to the ER for respiratory emergencies caused
by the smoke. My city is suffocating every summer. The whole Pacific
Northwest can't breathe.
In the US Constitution it says that everyone has the rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Washington state law says that I
have a "fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment."
But how am I supposed to live my life and pursue happiness when I can't
go outside in the summer and am living on a planet where record-breaking
storms, epidemic wildfires, and heat waves are displacing, sickening,
and killing thousands?
That's why, with the help of the nonprofit organization, Our Children's
Trust, 12 other youth and I sued the State of Washington for denying
young people our constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness by actively worsening the climate crisis.
Last week we got a ruling from the court that was pretty much a complete
write-off to my generation and kids everywhere who apparently now have
to be "optimistic" and beg our leaders for rights so basic as a livable
planet. Rights that previous generations were able to enjoy.
The ruling granted the state's motion to dismiss our case. Instead of
supporting young people asking for a livable future, the state fought
tooth and nail to shut us down, and the court ruled in favor of
silencing the young people's pleas.
What's even more disappointing is that the judge ignored the fact that
the legislature has already stated that the youth have a "fundamental
and inalienable" right to a "healthful environment." Here is what the
law says: "The legislature recognizes that each person has a fundamental
and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person
has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement
of the environment." This is the only right the legislature has
characterized as "fundamental and inalienable."
The judge who ruled on this case did not assume that the scientific
facts we put in the complaint were true, which is what he was supposed
to do. He instead relied upon his personal opinions and outside sources
for the proposition that the youth should be "optimistic" about their
futures and hope that the ruling generation will change course.
Optimistic. How in the world am I supposed to be optimistic when I am
literally being given warnings not to go outside and breathe the air
because it is unhealthy. Apparently he neglected to look outside his
window to see how wildfire smoke has plagued our city.
When youth try to take a stand, our leaders blatantly and explicitly
disregard our rights, pat us on the head, and give us the legal
equivalent of "you're cute, don't worry about a thing little kid, we're
taking care of it." But the Washington State government isn't taking
care of anything when it comes to climate action.
My generation's right to a healthful environment is not an "aspiration,"
as the judge said. My own legislature has already recognized this as a
right that must be protected: "The legislature recognizes that each
person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful
environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to
the preservation and enhancement of the environment."
This is the only right the legislature has characterized as "fundamental
and inalienable." The constitution requires the judicial branch to serve
as a check and balance of executive and legislative actions that are
unconstitutional. This principle was used to challenge laws that
segregated African-American children in public education, laws that
prevented same-sex couples from marrying and laws that prevent
meaningful suffrage.
Youth being harmed by climate change are entitled to the same kind of
consideration. We won't stop fighting until we get the change we need
and deserve.
Jamie Margolin is the founder and Executive Director of Zero Hour
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/i-sued-the-state-of-washington-because-i-cant-breathe-there-they-ignored-me?CMP=share_btn_link
[Bloomberg on sea level rise]
*Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-29/miami-s-other-water-problem>*
The city has another serious water problem.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-29/miami-s-other-water-problem
*This Day in Climate History - October 7, 2003
<http://www.c-span.org/video/?178547-2/california-recall-acceptance-consession>
- from D.R. Tucker*
October 7, 2003: Arnold Schwarzenegger succeeds Gray Davis as the
governor of California after a highly controversial "recall election."
Schwarzenegger--who had been demonized by talk radio host Rush Limbaugh
in the weeks prior to the election as not being a "real"
conservative--would become one of the very few prominent elected
Republican officials urging action on climate change.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?178547-2/california-recall-acceptance-consession
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//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/20181007/42dc3e15/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list