[TheClimate.Vote] March 12, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue Mar 12 09:39:54 EDT 2019
/March 12, 2019/
[Mediamatters study: Broadcast media noticeably bad coverage in 2018]
*How broadcast TV networks covered climate change in 2018*
March 11, 2019 - TED MACDONALD & LISA HYMAS
Top trends from a year of broadcast TV news climate coverage
Key findings:
--There was a 45 percent drop in climate change coverage on the
broadcast networks' nightly news and Sunday morning political shows
from 2017 to 2018 -- from a total of 260 minutes in 2017 down to
just 142 minutes in 2018.
--Nearly a third of the time that the networks spent covering
climate change in 2018, or 46 minutes, came from a single episode of
NBC's Meet the Press on December 30 that was dedicated to discussion
of climate change.
--NBC was the only network that aired more minutes of climate
coverage in 2018 than in 2017 -- an increase of 23 percent. CBS'
time spent on climate coverage fell 56 percent from 2017 to 2018,
Fox News Sunday's fell by 75 percent, and ABC's fell by 81 percent.
--People of color made up only 9 percent of those who were
interviewed, featured, or quoted in the networks' climate coverage,
and women made up only 19 percent.
--None of the broadcast TV networks' news reports on hurricanes
Florence or Michael mentioned climate change. Only nine of their
segments reporting on other weather disasters of 2018 mentioned that
climate change exacerbates extreme weather.
--Almost three-quarters of 2018's climate coverage occurred in the
last three months of the year. Much of it focused on major climate
science reports released by the United Nations and the U.S. government.
--The links between national security and climate change were
discussed only once in 2018, in an NBC segment. ABC and CBS did not
mention that climate change poses serious threats to national security.
--Solutions or actions offered in response to climate change were
mentioned in only a fifth of climate segments aired on ABC, CBS, or NBC.
Climate change coverage fell significantly from 2017 to 2018...
complete report at: -
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/03/11/How-broadcast-TV-networks-covered-climate-change-in-2018/223076
[fast change needed]
*Few pathways to an acceptable climate future without immediate action,
according to study*
March 11, 2019 , Tufts University
A new comprehensive study of climate change has painted over 5 million
pictures of humanity's potential future, and few foretell an Earth that
has not severely warmed. But with immediate action and some luck, there
are pathways to a tolerable climate future, according to a research team
led by Tufts University.
By adapting a popular computational climate change assessment model to
better account for uncertainties in human activity and the atmosphere's
sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels, the researchers created a novel
method for exploring the consequences of different climate change
futures to better inform policy decisions. The work is detailed in a
paper published today in the journal Nature Climate Change.
While modern assessment models integrate human activity and climate,
within each exist uncertainties that can affect the outcome of the
model. For instance, uncertainties in population growth, the economy,
technological advancement, and the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse
gases could all affect the predicted results of policies and laws
designed to curb global warming. The improved model described in the
study helped identify scenarios which led to a more tolerable climate
future by exploring a wide range of variation within each uncertainty.
"The consequences of severe warming can be dire. Given this potential
for poor outcomes, it can be dangerous to consider only a few expert
elicited scenarios," said Jonathan Lamontagne, Ph.D., assistant
professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Tufts University and
lead author of the study. "Planners need robust frameworks that broadly
explore the uncertainty space for unforeseen synergies and failure
mechanisms."
The model used in the study accounts for uncertainties in human activity
and climate by exploring millions of scenarios, some of which reveal
pathways to a world where warming is limited to 2-degrees Celsius by the
year 2100--a goal most climate experts say is required for a "tolerable"
future.
The massive analysis shows that meeting that target is exceptionally
difficult in all but the most optimistic climate scenarios. One pathway
is to immediately and aggressively pursue carbon-neutral energy
production by 2030 and hope that the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon
emissions is relatively low, according to the study. If climate
sensitivity is not low, the window to a tolerable future narrows and in
some scenarios, may already be closed.
The researchers emphasize that rapid carbon reduction strategies provide
a hedge against the possibility of high climate sensitivity scenarios.
"Despite massive uncertainties in a multitude of sectors, human actions
are still the driving factor in determining the long-term climate.
Uncertainty is sometimes interpreted as an excuse for delaying action.
Our research shows that uncertainty can be a solid reason to take
immediate action," said Lamontagne.
More information: Robust abatement pathways to tolerable climate futures
require immediate global action, Nature Climate Change (2019). DOI:
10.1038/s41558-019-0426-8 ,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0426-8
- -
[Nature Climate Change]
*Robust abatement pathways to tolerable climate futures require
immediate global action*
Abstract
Disentangling the relative importance of climate change abatement
policies from the human–Earth system (HES) uncertainties that
determine their performance is challenging because the two are
inexorably linked, and the nature of this linkage is dynamic,
interactive and metric specific1. Here, we demonstrate an approach
to quantify the individual and joint roles that diverse HES
uncertainties and our choices in abatement policy play in
determining future climate and economic conditions, as simulated by
an improved version of the Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and
the Economy2,3. Despite wide-ranging HES uncertainties, the growth
rate of global abatement (a societal choice) is the primary driver
of long-term warming. It is not a question of whether we can limit
warming but whether we choose to do so. Our results elucidate
important long-term HES dynamics that are often masked by common
time-aggregated metrics. Aggressive near-term abatement will be very
costly and do little to impact near-term warming. Conversely, the
warming that will be experienced by future generations will mostly
be driven by earlier abatement actions. We quantify probabilistic
abatement pathways to tolerable climate/economic outcomes4,5,
conditional on the climate sensitivity to the atmospheric CO2
concentration. Even under optimistic assumptions about the climate
sensitivity, pathways to a tolerable climate/economic future are
rapidly narrowing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0426-8
[immoral not to talk about it]
*We need to talk about the ethics of having children in a warming world*
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, nonprofits, and ethicists are now publicly
addressing questions about procreation in the age of climate change.
By Umair Irfan Updated Mar 11, 2019
- -
From the more than 70 testimonies collected so far, it's clear that
everyone has unique circumstances. But there are some common elements.
Ferorelli said that most of the anxieties fell along a spectrum between
two poles: the worry that a child will inherit a world that is much
worse than the one at present, and the worry that the child will make
the problem of climate change worse.
But several other questions cropped up:
Is climate the most important factor to consider when having a
child? "Everything is stacked against this generation's ability to
have a balanced, wholesome life with a child," said Ferorelli. In
many cities, the cost of living is rising, as well as the expenses
associated with child care, health, and education. Many people also
have tenuous job security. So even if someone were to resolve their
climate anxieties, all these other issues would remain.
How much time do I have to make a decision? Scientists warned last
year that if the goal is to limited warming to just 1.5 degrees
Celsius this century, the world would have to cut its carbon
emissions in half in as little as 12 years. However, prospective
parents have a limited fertility window, so they can't simply wait
and see if the world gets its act together.
Am I doing this for myself or someone else? Figuring out who
ultimately is supposed to benefit from your decision -- yourself,
your progeny, society writ large -- is crucial to coming up with an
answer. Kallman said she has even encountered people who have
decided not to have children with the belief that they are freeing
up resources for people who do have children. "It is generous to the
extreme," she said.
What could reassure me that I've made the right decision? There's no
formula or calculation that can point to a right answer. But there
are prospective parents who do want a balancing test. Some are
keeping an eye on climate policies to see what gets enacted.
What kinds of signals would I be sending? "We've encountered this
assumption that if you don't have a child, you're a nihilist,"
Ferorelli said. "You can't assume just because someone is having a
baby that they're an optimist."
How did others make up their minds? There are people who have
already decided not to have children for the sake of the climate.
There's a BirthStrike Facebook group. Families who have decided not
to have children because of climate change have come to that
conclusion from different angles.
Ferorelli and Kallman note that while the anxieties around having
children as the planet warms are intimate, the problem actually stems
from political decisions that lead us to continue emitting heat-trapping
gases. "We're not going to fix climate change by pressuring people to
have more or fewer children," Kallman said. "We're going to fix climate
change by going off fossil fuels."
And framing climate change simply as a problem of population is in
itself unjust, they argue. In their FAQ section on their website,
Ferorelli and Kallman explain:
Population corresponds to climate harm only to the degree that
individuals consume resources and emit carbon. No one emits more per
capita than the United States. If everyone on earth consumed the way
middle-class and wealthy Americans consume, we would need an additional
4.5-6 earths worth of resources to sustain ourselves. Therefore we
condemn the use of this topic to scapegoat the poor, or another
country's citizens.
So their goal isn't to push people to make a decision one way or the
other, but to address why they feel pressured by climate change in the
first place. "Our current function is driving the conversation," Kallman
said.
The questions are more important than the answers
Travis Rieder, a research scholar at the Berman Institute of Bioethics
at Johns Hopkins University who studies the ethics of having children,
points out that this is not the first time a generation has questioned
childbearing in the face of a potential existential threat. During the
Cold War, people were asking the same questions under fear of nuclear
annihilation.
And writing at Medium, Mary Annaise Heglar with the Natural Resources
Defense Council observed that black people in the United States have
long had to weigh the ethics of having children as racism has persisted
for generations:
Imagine living under a calculated, meticulous system dedicated to and
dependent on your oppression and being surrounded by that system's
hysterical, brainwashed guardians. Now imagine your children growing up
under that system, watching your daughter and the "ominous clouds of
inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky," as Martin
Luther King Jr. described.
The threat of nuclear war and violence from racism still hasn't gone
away. Those concerns remain valid. But now climate change is on the
table too.
While there isn't a "right" answer, Rieder said it might be helpful for
parents to ask themselves one particular question to clarify their
thinking: Is it one of your central goals in life to procreate?
"If the answer is 'no', that can really tell you a lot about how
justifiable it is to have lots of kids or even have a kid at all or
adopt an older kid," Rieder said. "There's this whole group of people
who actually aren't that passionate about it, but they're going to do it
because isn't that what you do when you get married and you get close to
30 and your parents start asking about grandbabies?"
On the other hand, having a child who could see the planet warm several
more degrees during their lifetime could be an incentive to fight
climate change aggressively right now.
As David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth, wrote
recently for New York magazine, "I now know there are climate horrors to
come, some of which will inevitably be visited on my kids -- that is
what it means for warming to be an all-encompassing, all-touching
threat. But I also know that those horrors are not yet scripted. We are
staging them by inaction, and by action, can stop them."
So it's a topic worth thinking about with clear eyes, regardless of
whether you decide to pass on half of your genes.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18256166/climate-change-having-kids
[audio from the BBC ]
*'The Age of Denial' This first episode called 'A Warm Winter' *
BBC Radio 4 the first of five 15 minute episodes
From credit cards to climate change, we bury our heads in the sand.
Isabel Hardman explores our capacity to deny what's in front of us. The
idea of being "in denial" is well known to psychologists. But how does
it operate at a community level? The series begins in Norway, with a
town where the response to the obvious impact of climate change
was...silence.
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000357k
- -
[a handful, say philosophers]
*FIVE TYPES OF CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS*
philosophytalk.org
As most readers here know, scientists overwhelmingly agree that
human-caused climate change is happening. Human activities, like burning
coal and cattle farming, cause emission of greenhouse gases, like CO2
and methane. Those gases make the atmosphere more absorbent of infrared
rays, which makes it get hotter. And the evidence-based predictions are
dire. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) "forecasts a
temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century."
So why do many people deny climate change? A common view is that such
people just reject science. But in most cases, it's not all science they
reject. After all, most climate deniers still believe that there's such
a thing as electricity and that the earth goes around the sun. And if
Dan Kahan's research is accurate, greater general scientific knowledge
among conservatives is associated with higher levels of climate change
denial (the relation is in the opposite direction for liberals). So
general rejection of science isn't an adequate explanation of denial. So
what is going on?
In my next blog, I'm going to take a deeper dive into the psychological
and sociological literatures on climate change denial. But in this one,
I want to do some conceptual framing that will enable us to better
understand those literatures once we get to them.
As I see it, there are at least five types of climate change denier. The
word "denier" needs to be taken broadly here, because not all of these
types are people who loudly proclaim that there is no anthropogenic
climate change. But all five types do contribute to the wider phenomenon
of denial. The types are these: The Deceiver, The Deceived, The
Self-Deceived, The Skeptic, and the Truly Ignorant. These types overlap
in interesting way, and it may be hard to tell in practice which type
you're talking to on any occasion. But listing them distinctly provides
an intellectual tool for thinking about how to deal with deniers both
theoretically and practically. So let's spell them out.
*Type 1: The Deceiver*
This is type knowingly spreads misinformation about climate change. That
could be denial that there is climate change, denial that humans are
causing it, denial that the effects are as bad as scientists say, etc.
But what is distinctive is that they are aware of what they are doing.
They are willfully mendacious merchants of doubt--often with fancy
degrees in the relevant sciences. They make good money from interests
like oil and coal. The thing to know about the Deceivers is that they're
clever: they'll know enough of the evidence for anthropogenic climate
change that they can cherry-pick amongst it in order to present a
distorted picture to those who are gullible. I think there are two ways
to neutralize a Deceiver: (1) expose them for what they are by following
the money (this is the one I recommend); (2) pay them more than what
they're getting from oil and coal (you have to have a lot of money for
this one).
*Type 2: The Deceived*
If Deceivers are in business, it's because their deceptions work on at
least some. So The Deceived is a tragic victim--someone who watches the
talking heads on conservative "news" programs and concludes that there
is no climate change or that it's not caused by humans (or whatever).
One who is Deceived is typically much less clever than a Deceiver, since
the Deceived is unable to sniff out the difference between a
propagandistic "news" program and a journalistically respectable news
source. But there is a grain of hope for this one, because someone in
who fits the Deceived type may simply be in error--as opposed to being
ideologically committed to the error or otherwise motivated. That means
there may be better prospects for correcting their erroneous views with
clear and good information, e.g., about mechanisms of climate change.
*Type 3: The Self-Deceived*
But I suspect that most deniers who aren't craven Deceivers themselves
are also not merely Deceived either. Rather, they take active mental
steps to resist drawing the conclusion that human-caused climate change
is occurring, and thus they deceive themselves. This may include
fixating on alternate explanations for the measured rise in temperatures
(Sunspots! Solar winds!), seizing upon the rare lapses of professional
ethics on the part of a few climate scientists, or "reasoning" from cold
winter days in their hometowns to the conclusion that global warming is
a hoax.
The Self-Deceived encompasses many sub-types. But they all have three
things in common. First, The Self-Deceived has some awareness of the
evidence in favor of climate change; it may be an inkling or it may be
substantial. This awareness is a thorn in their side that makes them
irritable and petulant when the topic comes up. Second, they have some
motivation in favor of denying anthropogenic climate change, which makes
them resist the evidence. As Helen De Cruz has recently argued (in
keeping with Kahan's cultural cognition hypothesis), that motivation is
often to belong to some social group, which makes having certain views
an identity marker. So third, The Self-Deceived must take regular steps
to maintain their denial, as outlined above.
The Self-Deceiver is frustrating, because she can't be won over with
simple solid evidence (that differentiates her from The Deceived) or
with financial incentive (which might work on a pure version of The
Deceiver). The Self-Deceiver, especially the identity-based one, is
possibly the most tenacious obstacle when it comes to fighting climate
change denial. Note also that The Self-Deceived may wind up in the same
social role as The Deceiver: that of being a public mouthpiece of
denial; in that case, The Deceiver will find the Self-Deceived to be an
easily manipulated and useful ally.
*Type 4: The Skeptic*
This type technically doesn't deny anthropogenic climate change in the
sense of positively saying that it doesn't exist. The Skeptic just
argues that we don't know one way or another. Effectively, however, The
Skeptic plays into The Deceiver's hand, because The Skeptic's position
leaves people uncertain and hence (in point of psychological fact)
immobilized, which is exactly what The Deceiver is paid to produce
anyway. The Skeptic can be more or less sophisticated. The
unsophisticated Skeptic is unaware of large fragments of the evidence,
but they think they know more of it than they do. As a result, the
evidence appears inconclusive. The sophisticated Skeptic is someone like
Richard Lindzen, a professor emeritus at MIT who makes a big deal out of
emphasizing that scientific consensuses have been wrong in the past and
that not every alternate explanation of warming has been conclusively
ruled out.
The Skeptic, especially the sophisticated one, is also a frustrating
figure. That's because for anything that is not logic, mathematics, or
straightforward perceptual fact, it's very easy to argue that we don't
actually know something. For example, I could argue: you don't actually
know that Mongolia exists, because you've never been there… you've only
heard about it, and you don't know if your sources were telling the
truth! But that's cheap. You actually do know that Mongolia exists
through multiple converging independent channels, but that kind of
socially grounded knowledge is hard to explain. The problem with The
Skeptic's stance, then, is that it's biased: it exhibits a level of
doubt toward the consensus on climate change that, if applied
universally, would undercut much other knowledge that we all take for
granted. For the record, I think the best way to deal with The Skeptic
is to point out that some level of uncertainty is no excuse for
inaction, and action should rest on the best science we have, even if
it's in principle possible that it's in error. Importantly, "possibly in
error" doesn't mean "likely in error," and the likelihood that climate
science is wrong goes down each year the global temperature goes up.
*Type 5: The Truly Ignorant*
This type really just doesn't know anything one way or another. Their
saving grace is that they know they don't know. But like The Deceived,
The Truly Ignorant is a victim of The Deceiver's (and probably
Self-Deceiver's) propaganda. This type is aware of conflicting
information channels, but they are unsuccessful at discriminating which
one is the good one. So The Truly Ignorant just feels stuck, not knowing
whom to believe or how to escape their predicament. Alternately, another
way to be truly ignorant is just to be unmotivated to find out more
information. So we can distinguish two sub-types of The Truly Ignorant:
The Bewildered and The Lazy. The former would like to know more but is
just overwhelmed by apparently conflicting information and so doesn't
achieve knowledge about climate change. The latter just doesn't care.
The Truly Ignorant differs from The Skeptic in the following way: The
Skeptic claims that the evidence doesn't demonstrate that anthropogenic
climate change is occurring, which is actually a strong claim. The Truly
Ignorant really just doesn't know what the evidence demonstrates, and
they don't trust themselves to figure it out or care to. To me, The
Truly Ignorant is the saddest type of all: a victim of those merchants
of doubt who feels helpless or unmotivated to escape their epistemic hole.
Those are the five Types. So that's all for now. Next month I'll apply
the Types in untangling some thorny data in the empirical literatures on
climate change denial. But in the meanwhile, try asking yourself--next
time you confront a climate change denier--which Type (or mix of Types)
you're addressing. Doing so might help you develop more nuanced tactics.
https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/five-types-climate-change-deniers
- -
[more discussions of denial]
*Living in Denial-A memoir of the United StatesTime, Ideology, and
Emotions in Norgaard's Living in Denial*
Knowledge Alone is Not Enough: Implicatory Denial and the People of Bygdaby
Posted on February 6, 2017 by blahblahblah askjgaslgkja
The introduction and first two chapters of Kari Norgaard's "Living in
Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life," provided
fascinating insight into the phenomenon of implicatory denial. Upon
initially reading the title, I thought that Norgaard's text would be an
examination of outright climate change denial--or as Norgaard refers to
it, literal denial. I had not realized that denial existed in multiple
forms prior to reading Norgaard's text. Her citation of British
sociologist Stanley Cohen's three forms of denial proved incredibly
interesting and underscored denial's nuance and complexities. Asserting
that denial is not merely blatant rejection of some fact or piece of
information, but can also exist as a failure to utilize knowledge to
engender change, demonstrates that non-complicity is not as simple as
merely knowing the truth.
I also found Norgaard's discussion of the Norwegian sensibility
particularly interesting as it seems to exist in contrast to implicatory
denial. She cites that the Norwegian sensibility suggests that "being a
good person means contributing to society, holding a strong belief in
equality and humanitarianism, and not being wasteful or ostentatious". I
found this interesting because it seems to be almost antithetical to the
implicatory denial that those in Bygdaby are engaging in (I'm not sure
if "engaging in" is even the right phrase). I also found it fascinating
that part of the reason driving their implicatory denial is because
combating climate change is seen as something that can only be tackled
on the national or international, rather than local, level--despite the
fact that it is a local problem. The feeling of powerlessness to create
widespread change at a local level seems to be a problem common in the
United States as well. I know many people who never vote in local
elections because they see it as insignificant to change the wide
sweeping inequalities and problems afflicting our country. How can we
begin to alter such viewpoints?
https://my.vanderbilt.edu/researchmatters/2017/02/knowledge-alone-is-not-enough-implicatory-denial-and-the-people-of-bygdaby/
[something to watch from afar]
*Avalanches Menace Colorado as Climate Change Raises the Risk*
Hundreds of avalanches have roared down mountainsides and some swept
over highways in recent weeks. Mountain regions in the U.S. and Europe
are preparing for more.
BY BOB BERWYN, INSIDECLIMATE NEWS
- -
In the past week, masses of snow sliding off mountains shut down ski
resorts, damaged gas lines and buried cars on busy highways. Along
Interstate 70--a key east-west corridor through the Rocky
Mountains--massive clouds of pulverized snow moving at speeds of up to
200 mph pushed pickup trucks into the median and left the road covered
with piles of compressed frozen snow as hard as concrete.
Normally, avalanche experts with the Colorado Department of
Transportation reduce the risk by releasing controlled avalanches while
roads are closed, but the extreme conditions in early March took even
seasoned Colorado veterans by surprise, with large avalanches
unexpectedly hitting roads while they were open. On March 8, the
Colorado Avalanche Information Center said 346 avalanches had been
reported in the previous seven days. Two people died in the avalanches.
"CDOT will have to rethink their avalanche work along I-70 after this,"
Finnigan said as he slurped soup at the Arapahoe Basin lodge after a day
of blasting mountain slopes. He has worked in the snow safety field for
about 30 years, sometimes triggering controlled avalanches with
hand-thrown charges or by cutting into brittle slopes with his skis...
- - -
Snow scientists say extreme avalanches are among the accelerating
impacts of climate change in mountain regions. Global warming can affect
avalanches in several ways:
More moisture in a warmer atmosphere can fuel more extreme snowstorms,
which means bigger avalanches.
Warmer temperatures can make snow layers collapse and slide.
More rain-on-snow events also destabilize snow layers...
- -
*Mountain Regions Scramble to Prepare*
The extreme avalanches in Colorado have disrupted transportation
corridors across the Rockies, affecting food and energy supplies, as
well as some access to Colorado's $5 billion ski industry.
Between Frisco and Vail, slides have reshaped parts of the landscape
clearing swaths of forest up to several hundred feet wide and thousands
of feet long.
- - -
Switzerland has experienced similar impacts in recent years and is
already adapting avalanche mitigation plans based on global warming.
Scientists and engineers in the mountainous country are expecting more
extreme snowstorms, so they are building higher avalanche barriers to
prevent masses of snow from sliding off the peaks. Transportation
departments there an elsewhere in the Alps are planning and building
expensive new tunnels and other barriers to protect roads from snow slides.
Swiss experts are also updating avalanche hazard maps, because they
expect that global warming will put new areas at risk. Detailed
satellite measurements of extreme avalanches in the winter of 2017-2018
will help assess future risks, said Perry Barthelt of the Swiss Federal
Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research.
- - -
Colorado's recent avalanches were fueled by unusually powerful
atmospheric rivers streaming off the Pacific Ocean, which has been
warming as the planet's temperatures rise and is also in the midst of a
warm El Nino.
A moist atmosphere fuels wetter storms in summer and winter--the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just announced that the
December 2018 to February 2019 period was the wettest winter on record
for the contiguous U.S. In cold areas, that means more snow, which leads
to more avalanches.
- - -
*'No Question Things Are Changing'*
Scott Toepfer, who studied and forecast avalanches with the Colorado
Avalanche Information Center for several decades, said he's worried that
global warming will fuel super snowstorms that could produce and larger
and more unpredictable avalanches.
"If these outlier monster storms come in, you're not going to see the
typical avalanche pattern. There's no question in my mind that things
are changing," Toepfer said. That will make it harder to forecast the
risks, he said.
Winter and spring are warming faster than other seasons, and that could
mean more risk for slow-moving, but grinding wet snow avalanches, which
are "an under-researched category in the avalanche world," he said...
- -
*Forecasting Avalanche Risk Gets Harder*
One thing is certain--global warming will make the task for forecasting
avalanches to ensure public safety more difficult than ever, and it's
already tricky when dealing with a dynamic, metamorphic substance like snow.
"What's going to happen, if there are warming temperatures, the
forecasting of the avalanches is going to be different," said Barthelt.
Old forecasting equations based on predictable mountain temperature
patterns won't apply anymore, he explained.
Warmer temperatures and more rain falling on snow will also increase the
risk of mountain avalanches transporting large amounts of water, mud and
debris. Such slush-flow events are now more common in Norway and Russia.
"You get water-saturated flows that carry debris, and they will probably
move very fast. That's something that we're worried about," Barthelt said.
"Anything that changes the thermodynamics is something we have to think
about," he said. "Snow is a very interesting material because it exists
near its melting point. It's a reactive agent in all of these processes."
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08032019/avalanche-climate-change-risk-snow-storm-forecast-colorado-switzerland
[Check the weather data]
*From North to South, A Winter and Summer of Record Temperature Extremes*
Christopher C. Burt · March 8, 2019, 5:03 PM EST
On March 2, 2019, Dover, Tasmania, attained an all-time record high of
40.1C (104.3F), the hottest reading ever observed in that Australian
state during the month of March. Just the next day (March 4 in the U.S.)
a temperature of -46F was measured at Elk Park, Montana, a new
(preliminary) all-time record for cold in that state for March. These
two dramatic extremes were exclamation points on what has been one of
the most extreme northern-winter/southern-summer pairings on Earth in
terms of temperature (in the modern record, of course, extending back a
little more than a century).
Consider that February brought Western Europe's most exceptional winter
heat wave on record. Although the temperatures were not dangerously hot,
the departures from average were astounding. As detailed below, all-time
national monthly heat records were measured in the United Kingdom,
Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Sweden, Hungry, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Denmark, Andorra, and San Marino. Meanwhile, all-time (any
month) coldest temperatures on record were observed in parts of Japan,
Canada, and the U.S., both in January and February.
Australia has just endured its hottest summer on record, and in southern
Africa, Angola saw its hottest temperature ever measured (any month).
- - -
[Mostly hotter]
*From Global North to Global South, a winter and summer of record
temperature extremes – Only small portions of Earth saw record cold weather*
https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/03/from-global-north-to-global-south-a-winter-and-summer-of-record-temperature-extremes-only-small-portions-of-earth-saw-record-cold-weather.html
- - -
*A chronology of 2018-19 winter/summer temperature records from around
the world*
Here is how the climatological northern winter/southern summer played
out day-by-day between December 1, 2018, and February 28, 2019. Only
records that one would consider "significant" are included (i.e.,
monthly temperature records on the national scale and all-time records
for cities, states, and countries). Since all of the world's nations
except the United States use Celsius as their primary scale, all
temperatures below except U.S. records originated in Celsius and are
converted to Fahrenheit.
*DECEMBER 2018*
Dec. 4: 29.8C (85.6F) Kagamihara (Miyakojima Prefecture), Japan.
National monthly record excluding Marcus Island.
Dec. 4: 33.6C (92.5F) Kaohsiung City, Taiwan. National monthly record
(former record 32.9C at Tainan in 1974).
Dec. 8: 34.0C (93.2F) Praia, Cabo Verde. Territorial monthly record
(former record 33.6C at Praia in 2002).
Dec. 22: 37.5C (99.5F) Chon Buri, Thailand. National monthly record.
Dec. 23: 37.6C (99.7F) Karwar, India. Reliable national monthly record
(higher and probably-unreliable figures have been reported in the past
at other locations and years)
Dec. 27: 46.3C (115.3F) Skukuza, South Africa. All-time record for any
month.
Dec. 29: 29.0C (84.2F) minimum daily temperature at Bangkok, Thailand.
Warmest daily minimum ever measured in December for the Northern Hemisphere.
December as a whole: Second warmest December globally on record since 1880.
*JANUARY 2019*
Jan. 19: 31.6C (88.9F) Christmas Island, Australia. All-time territorial
record for any month.
Jan. 24: 46.6C (115.9F) Adelaide, Australia. All-time record for site.
The 49.5C (121.1F) at Port Augusta is the highest temperature ever
measured on the coast of any ocean in the Southern Hemisphere.
Jan. 24: 38.7C (101.2F) Namacunde, Angola. National monthly record.
Jan. 25: 37.0C (98.6F) Pointe des Trois-Bassins, Reunion Island.
All-time territorial record for any month. Former record was 36.9C at Le
Port on two occasions.
Jan. 26: 36.6C (97.9F) daily minimum at Wanaaring (Borrona Downs), NSW,
Australia. All-time national high minimum and world record high minimum
for month of January.
Jan. 26: 38.3C (100.9F) Santiago, Chile (Quinta Normal, the city's
official site). All-time record for city. 37.7C observed at Pudahuel
Airport in Santiago as well. Previous record for Quinta Normal 37.4C on
Jan. 25, 2017. Also, Chilean regional all-time heat records were set at
Santa Maria (Valparaiso Region) with 42.5C (108.5F) and at Huechun
(Metropolitan Region) with 41.9 (107.4F).
Jan. 26: 44.0C (111.2F) Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay. National
monthly record (all-time record is 45.0C at Prats Gill on Nov. 14, 2009).
Jan. 27: -46F (-43.3C) International Falls, Minnesota, USA. Ties
all-time minimum for site (excludes readings from 1909 at different
location).
Jan. 31: -38F (-38.9C) Mt. Carroll, Illinois, USA. All-time state cold
record. Also all-time minimum records set at Moline, Illinois (-33F) and
Rockford, Illinois (-31F).
Jan. 31: 38.4C (101.1F) Hanmer Forrest, New Zealand. All-time record set
here and at 11 other New Zealand sites.
January as a whole: Warmest month on record for Australia. Warmest
January on record for Bangkok, Thailand (avg. 29.3C/84.7F). Third
warmest January globally on record.
*FEBRUARY 2019*
Feb. 1-4: Chile heat wave breaks all-time records at 10 cities, with
temperatures ranging from 35.1C (95.2F) to 40.7C (105.3F). A 40.7C at
Traiguen is perhaps the most southerly 40C+ reading ever measured on Earth.
Feb. 4: Argentina: 38.2C (100.8F) at Perito Moreno, 35.8C (96.6F) Rio
Gallegos, 30.8C (87.4F) Rio Grande. All-time site records (the latter is
also a record for the Tierra del Fuego region).
Feb. 5: 21.7C (71.1F) Sea Lion Island, Falkland Islands. All-time record
and first 20C+ ever measured at site.
Feb. 7: -46.5C (-51.7F) Coronach, Saskatchewan, Canada (near Montana
border). All-time cold record for any month.
Feb. 8: -13.8C (7.2F) Shigeno Inui, Japan. All-time cold record.
Feb. 9: -30.7C (-23.3F) Lake Akan, Hokkaido, Japan. All-time cold
record. Also all-time cold record at Teshikaga (-26.7C) and Taika (-29.8C).
Feb. 11: -12.6C (9.3F) Mauna Kea Summit, Hawaii. Possible all-time state
record minimum.
Feb. 15: 42.4C (108.3F) Traiguen, Chile. New national monthly record.
Feb. 16: 41.0C (105.8F) Espinheira, Angola. All-time national record for
any month.
Feb. 17: 37.1C (98.8F) Salvador, Brazil. All-time record. This is a very
temperate location that rarely experiences extreme highs or lows.
*Europe's phenomenal February heat wave*
From February 24 until the end of the month (February 28), much of
Europe experienced its most extreme February and/or climatological
winter (Dec.-Feb) heat wave on record. Here is a summary of the national
records set.
Feb. 26: 21.2C (70.2F) Kew Gardens, London, United Kingdom. National
monthly record and warmest winter day on record. The previous U.K.
winter record was 19.7C at Greenwich Observatory, Feb. 13, 1998.
The independent Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey also set February
temperature records with 18.3C (64.9F) and 16.1C (61.0) respectively.
15.8C (60.4F) Tirstrup, Denmark. Ties national monthly record also set
at Copenhagen on Feb. 25, 1990.
16.7C (62.1F) Karlshamn, Sweden. National monthly record. Previous
record 16.5C at Vastervik on Feb. 19, 1961.
Feb. 27
20.5C (68.9F) Arcen, Netherlands. National monthly record. Previous
record 20.4C at Oost-Maarland on Feb. 24, 1990.
22.4C (72.3F) Angleur, Belgium. National monthly record. Previous record
21.1C at Angleur on Feb. 24, 1990
22.5C (72.5F) Remich, Luxembourg. National monthly record. Previous
record 20.0C at Remich in late February 1960.
26.1C (79.0F) Borda Vidal, Andorra. National monthly record. This figure
is questionable, but a confirmed 22.5C was observed at Freda, which
would be the monthly record in any case. Previous record 22.3C at Borda
Vidal in Feb. 2011.
Feb. 28
24.2C (75.6F) at both Gussing and Deutschlandsberg, Austria. National
monthly record. Previous record 23.6C at Bruck an der Mur on Feb. 29, 1960.
23.5C (74.3F) Sarver, Hungary. National monthly record. Previous record
22.9C at Rabagyarmat on Feb. 12, 1998.
20.6C (69.1F) Hurbanovo and Ziharec, Slovakia. National monthly record.
Previous record 20.3C at Bratislava on Feb. 22, 2016.
20.3C (68.5F) Chiesanuova, San Marino. Ties national monthly record.
24.1C (74.7F) Gacnik, Slovenia. National monthly record. Previous record
24.0C at Vedrijan on Feb. 22, 1990.
In Germany, 252 official weather stations (close to half of the nation's
total) broke their monthly record highs during this late February warm
spell, although the maximum figure of 21.7C (71.1F) at
Saarbruken-Burback on Feb. 27 fell short of the national monthly record
of 23.1C set at Jena Astronomical Observatory in 1900.
In France, about 91 out of 158 stations broke their monthly records,
including a 22.7C (72.9F) reading at a site in Brittany, a monthly
regional record and similar to what a mid-summer reading would be in
this part of France. The average maximum temperature on February 27 was
21.3C (70.3F) for the entire country, the warmest February day on record.
Norway just fell 0.2C short of its national monthly record with a 18.7C
(65.7F) at Landvik on February 26. Bergen set its February record with a
13.5C (56.3F) reading.
*Australia's scorching summer of 2018-19*
Probably the most significant weather event of the past winter/summer
was how Australia endured its warmest summer on record, with January
being its single warmest month ever observed. The average temperature
nationally was some 2.14C (3.85F) above normal over the course of the
entire three-month period December-February. This is an extraordinary
anomaly for such a large area and long time period, being about 0.7C
above that of the previous warmest summer on record, which occurred in
2012-2013.
The actual number of extreme daily maximum temperatures were not what
one might expect from such a torrid summer. Blair Trewin of the Bureau
of Meteorology (BOM) noted in an email: "Although Australia had, by far,
its hottest summer on record, the number of all-time record high
temperatures at individual locations was actually fairly modest
considering how extreme the seasonal anomaly was; the heat was more
notable for its spatial extent and its duration than for its peak
intensity."
*Conclusion*
One thing that looking at all these statistics makes clear is only small
portions of the Earth saw any record cold weather this past northern
winter/southern summer. The most focused area of cold departures
happened to be in the northern United States and southern Canada, where
the coldest temperatures since 1996 were seen in portions of the Upper
Midwest. February was the second coldest month on record for
Montana--but it was also the second warmest February on record for the
Arctic region of Alaska and for the southern half of Florida. The point
is that one needs to take a global perspective when discussing how
climate change may be affecting temperature records.
Many all-time (any month) records were set at other locations aside from
those listed in this blog. Jeff Masters will have a full list of such in
his February global weather summary post, which will be published around
March 18. See also the Category 6 global summaries for December 2018 and
January 2019.
KUDOS: Thanks to Maximilliano Herrera, Jerome Reynaud (Geoclimat),
Etienne Kapikian (Meteo France), Michael Theusner (Klimahaus,
Bremerhaven, Germany), and Blair Trewin (Australian Bureau of
Meteorology) for providing the information above on temperature record.
Christopher C. Burt
Weather Historian
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/North-South-Winter-and-Summer-Record-Temperature-Extremes
*This Day in Climate History - March 12, 2013 - from D.R. Tucker*
March 12, 2013: The Boston Phoenix's Wen Stephenson observes:
"On January 24, Congressman [Edward] Markey joined his colleague
Henry Waxman of California and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode
Island -- three of the most vocal climate champions in the United
States Congress -- in sending a letter to President Obama, informing
him that they are creating a special 'bicameral task force on
climate change.' It's a strongly worded letter. 'We believe, as you
do,' they write, 'that climate change is a profound threat to our
nation, that our window for preventing irreversible harm is rapidly
closing, and that leaders have a moral obligation to act.' They call
upon Obama for 'decisive presidential leadership.' This does not
include, at least in their letter, any mention of the Keystone XL
pipeline. But it does include 'executive action' -- such as using
the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate existing
power plants -- to ensure that U.S. emissions are reduced 'at least
17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.'
"Yes, that's the same target Obama pledged at Copenhagen, and the
same as the 2009 Waxman-Markey bill. Never mind that the window is
'rapidly closing.' With fossil-fuel funded deniers controlling the
House, with the U.S. Senate no longer bound to 51-vote majority
rule, even the strongest advocates for climate action in Congress
make no pretense that what's necessary -- that what science demands
-- can be seriously discussed in Washington.
"As I write this, President Obama's State of the Union address is
still days away. There's chatter about another 'strong' statement on
climate. But it's too much to expect that the president is finally
ready to lead, to level with the American people about what it would
actually mean to 'respond to the threat of climate change,' as he
said on January 21 -- in a speech invoking Lincoln and the abolition
of slavery -- and 'preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.'
"No, the only thing that matters now is whether there are enough of
us ready to lead him, and the rest of our country, in the direction
that science -- and hope, and patriotism, and love -- tell us we
must go."
http://web.archive.org/web/20130509041103/http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/151670-new-abolitionists-global-warming-is-the-great/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe,
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for
http://TheClimate.Vote <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.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list