[TheClimate.Vote] April 16, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*April 16, 2020*/

[NYTimes warns]
*Wildlife Collapse From Climate Change Is Predicted to Hit Suddenly and 
Sooner*
Scientists found a "cliff edge" instead of the slippery slope they expected.
- -
The latest research adds to an already bleak picture for the world's 
wildlife unless urgent action is taken to preserve habitats and limit 
climate change. More than a million plant and animal species are at risk 
of extinction because of the myriad ways humans are changing the earth 
by farming, fishing, logging, mining, poaching and burning fossil fuels.
- -
The study does not take into account other factors that could help or 
hurt a species' survival. For example, some species may tolerate or 
adapt to higher temperatures; on the other hand, if their food sources 
could not, they would die off just the same.

"It provides yet another, critical wake-up call about the massive 
repercussions of a rapidly warming world," said Walter Jetz, an 
ecologist at Yale University who did not participate in the study. He 
added that it was more evidence of the importance of following through 
on the pledges that nations around the world made in the Paris Agreement 
on climate change. The Trump administration is in the process of 
withdrawing from that commitment.

The study suggested that even keeping global warming to less than 2 
degrees Celsius, in accordance with the Paris Agreement, would still 
leave many people and ecosystems vulnerable.

"If we take action now, we limit this abrupt disruption to 2 percent of 
the planet," Dr. Trisos said. "But that two percent of the planet still 
has a lot of people living there in tropical regions. And they need our 
help."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/climate/wildlife-population-collapse-climate-change.html



[recalculating]
*Scientists confirm dramatic melting of Greenland ice sheet*
Study reveals loss largely due to high pressure zone not taken into 
account by climate models
There was a dramatic melting of Greenland's ice sheet in the summer of 
2019, researchers have confirmed, in a study that reveals the loss was 
largely down to a persistent zone of high pressure over the region.

The ice sheet melted at a near record rate in 2019, and much faster than 
the average of previous decades. Figures have suggested that in July 
alone surface ice declined by 197 gigatonnes – equivalent to about 80 
million Olympic swimming pools.

Now experts have examined the level of melting in more detail, revealing 
what drove it. Crucially, the team note, the high pressure conditions 
lasted for 63 of the 92 summer days in 2019, compared with an average of 
just 28 days between 1981 and 2010. A similar situation was seen in 
2012, a record bad year for melting of the ice sheet...
- - -
"Clearly, this shows that extreme melt events are becoming a lot more 
frequent," he said, adding that the new study showed that persistent 
atmospheric high pressure was an important factor, resulting in clear 
skies and a lack of snowfall in the south and warm, moist air being 
brought to northern parts of the ice sheet. "In that sense, the extreme 
melt years can be seen as natural events exacerbated by climate change," 
said Christoffersen.

Prof Andy Shepherd from the University of Leeds said a fall in surface 
mass balance was concerning. "If that drops below zero, then the ice 
sheet is no longer viable because in every year it is losing more ice 
than it gains," he said, adding that that was not even counting the loss 
of icebergs. "Even if the glaciers stopped flowing, which is not going 
to happen, it would mean that the ice sheet still can't survive," he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/apr/15/scientists-confirm-dramatic-melting-greenland-ice-sheet



[persistent scourge]
*Climate Science Deniers Turn to Attacking Coronavirus Models*
Vocal critics have cited perceived flaws in both climate and virus 
modeling, despite scientific evidence to the contrary
By Scott Waldman, E&E News on April 15, 2020
A vocal set of conservative critics have increased their attacks 
recently on the data modeling behind the novel coronavirus response, and 
they claim--despite scientific evidence to the contrary--that the flaws 
also prove the limits of climate change forecasts.

The group, which includes federal lawmakers, climate science deniers and 
conservative pundits with close White House connections, has even called 
for congressional hearings into the coronavirus modeling.

That's in spite of assurances from public health officials that 
better-than-expected U.S. death estimates for COVID-19 are because 
millions of Americans responded to pleas for social distancing. The 
most-used model now forecasts 60,000 U.S. deaths rather than 100,000 or 
more.

"After #COVID-19 crisis passes, could we have a good faith discussion 
about the uses and abuses of 'modeling' to predict the future?" Sen. 
John Cornyn (R-Texas) tweeted. "Everything from public health, to 
economic to climate predictions. It isn't the scientific method, folks."...
- -
Health experts say the models worked the way they were supposed to--by 
providing a glimpse into a dire future that was partially averted 
because of collective action...
- -
"Any insinuation that scientists distorted their models into scaring 
people and wrecking our economy is not only wrongheaded, it smacks of an 
ulterior motive for even raising it," Bernstein said. "There's no 
evidence that scientists have done anything to models that have 
suggested we would have been far worse off having not done stuff to keep 
ourselves safe, and I would say the same about climate models."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the immunologist who helps lead President Trump's 
coronavirus response team, has repeatedly explained why the models have 
shifting numbers.

"Models are as good as the assumptions you put into them, and as we get 
more data, then you put it in and that might change," he said at a 
recent press briefing...
- - -
Nonetheless, conservative pundits, who are not trained as climate 
scientists, have repurposed the coronavirus modeling to attack climate 
projections in recent days.

"It seems like the computer models for the corona virus pandemic are 
about as accurate as the computer models that have failed so miserably 
on global warming," tweeted Patrick Moore, the chairman of the CO2 
Coalition, which claims the world needs to burn more fossil fuels to 
help the planet and has connections to the Trump White House. "Proves 
you can't predict a chaotic, multi-factor, non-linear future."

The CO2 Coalition was founded by William Happer, who served on the 
National Security Council at the White House and unsuccessfully tried to 
launch a hostile review of climate science.

Others predicted blowback if the coronavirus pandemic isn't incredibly 
deadly.

"I cannot even begin to describe the public backlash that will occur if 
#Corinavirus [sic] kills fewer Americans this year than the flu," wrote 
Dinesh D'Souza, the conservative author who was pardoned by Trump after 
a felony conviction of making illegal campaign contributions. "For 
starters, the medical establishment will look like even bigger fools 
than the #ClimateChange establishment."

On Monday, Laura Ingraham, who has used her close relationship with 
Trump to press untested drug cocktails as coronavirus treatments, 
attacked the models on her Fox News show. A chyron at the bottom of the 
screen read, "Faulty covid models causing panic." She said the 
government has now figured out that "these fancy COVID-19 models were 
wrong" and that her personal team of statisticians and medical 
professionals who predicted as much were correct.

"This is a lot of money that we're spending on a response that was 
based, again, on faulty numbers," she said.

Dismissing critics who don't understand or who misrepresent models will 
be important as states look for the best ways to reopen around the 
country, health experts say.

The last few weeks are a proof that modeling works, said Dr. Georges 
Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. 
Without their guidance, more people would have died, more economic harm 
would have occurred and greater health care cost burdens would have been 
placed on the system, he said.

"The models become even more important now because we're going to need 
to know when we should adjust our reopening," he said. "We're going to 
need these models to help us know, as some kind of early warning, when 
we should stop and pause or pull back a little bit, because if we don't, 
what will happen is we will get too far down the line and things will 
get much worse before they get better."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-deniers-turn-to-attacking-coronavirus-models/



[brief cartoon video]
*Debunking Cranky Uncle on future ice age*
Apr 15, 2020
John Cook
A debunking of the "we're heading into an ice age" myth, using cartoons 
from the Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change book:
http://crankyuncle.com/book
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsY8XtmQgxE


[observation/opinion]
*Obama Finally Seems to Get the Climate Crisis--Now Biden Needs to Do 
the Same*
When Barack Obama became president in 2008, he knew much work lay ahead. 
In his acceptance speech, he talked about a "planet in peril." Before 
entering the White House, Obama offered a message to the Global Climate 
Summit where he promised "a new chapter in America's leadership in 
climate change."

Fast forward a decade later, and the pages of that chapter remain blank. 
The tiny steps Obama took on climate change haven't amounted to much. 
And we're now facing a climate crisis that demands a lot more than a 
cap-and-trade system and bogus clean coal technologies--both of which he 
promised back in 2008 but didn't deliver on. That's not enough anymore. 
The crisis demands the end of fossil fuels. Stat.

Obama finally appeared to acknowledge his failure on climate action in 
an endorsement video for Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president 
and his former vice president. The question is if Biden is up to the 
challenge.
Obama said that the U.S. has to re-sign the Paris Agreement, but that 
it's only a start. Any climate action has to go well beyond that.
"Science tells us we have to go much further, that it's time for us to 
accelerate progress on bold new green initiatives that make our economy 
a clean energy innovator, save us money, and secure our children's 
future," Obama said in his endorsement.

The initiatives Obama led were not that bold. In fact, a large part of 
his energy legacy is the fracking boom across the U.S. In 2018, he took 
credit for it, telling an audience at Rice University, "that whole, 
suddenly America's like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas 
that was me, people."
But the fossil fuel extraction method of choice for the Obama 
administration emits a shit ton of methane, a greenhouse gas with 84 
times the warming power of carbon over 20 years. Obama wanted to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, but 
that was never gonna be enough to avert the worst impacts of climate 
change. Science now shows that, by 2030, the world has to cut its 
emissions by nearly half the levels they were in 2010 with developed 
countries like the U.S.--the biggest carbon polluter--doing even more.

The details of Obama's plans weren't enough to get us out of this mess. 
Trump's plans never involved solving climate change. Obama, however, is 
asking voters to put their faith in Biden to get it done.

Biden's climate proposals aren't bad, but they also don't go far enough. 
He wouldn't ban fracking. He doesn't tell us what he plans to spend on 
expanding public transit. He doesn't take seriously the need for a Green 
New Deal, which aims to transform our economy by decarbonizing large 
swaths of the economy in 10 years while pulling communities out of poverty.

That makes Biden essentially Obama, circa 2008. The difference is that 
the Obama who spoke Tuesday appears a lot wiser on the climate front 
than that senator-turned-president in 2008 or even 2012. Still, he 
wasn't wise enough to call for a Green New Deal, which would bring about 
this bold structural change he mentions. He even alluded to the 
arguments within the party about it and other policies, saying 
"Democrats may not always agree on every detail." But what better time 
to roll it out than during the economic crisis brought on by coronavirus?

Senator Bernie Sanders' endorsed Biden on Monday, and the two have 
agreed to a working group on climate change among others that could push 
Biden to strengthening his climate plan. With Obama seeming to grasp the 
urgency of the moment despite past mistakes, there's hope for Biden to 
do the same. As for the other guy?

"Our country's future hangs on this election," Obama said in his 
endorsement.

No, Mr. President. The world's future does. Another four years of Trump 
would be a global disaster.
- -
Yessenia Funes
Senior staff writer, Earther. All things environmental justice, please. 
I'm addicted to Stardew and love few things more than I love my cat.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/obama-finally-seems-to-get-the-climate-crisis-now-biden-1842866428



[NYTimes on the economy]
*Think This Pandemic Is Bad? We Have Another Crisis Coming*
Addressing climate change is a big-enough idea to revive the economy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/opinion/climate-change-covid-economy.html



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming  - April 16, 2005 *

In his weekly radio address, President George W. Bush declares:

"In the coming days and weeks I'll talk more about what we need to do in 
Washington to make sure America has an energy policy that reflects the 
demands of a new century. The first order of business is for Congress to 
pass an energy bill. Next week Congress begins debate on energy 
legislation and they need to send me a bill that meets four important 
objectives:

"First, the energy bill must encourage the use of technology to improve 
conservation. We must find smarter ways to meet our energy needs, and we 
must encourage Americans to make better choices about energy 
consumption. We must also continue to invest in research, so we will 
develop the technologies that would allow us to conserve more and be 
better stewards of the environment.

"Second, the energy bill must encourage more production at home in 
environmentally sensitive ways. Over the past three years, America's 
energy consumption has increased by about 4 percent, while our domestic 
energy production has decreased by about 1 percent. That means more of 
our energy is coming from abroad. To meet our energy needs and 
strengthen our national security we must make America less dependent on 
foreign sources of energy.

"Third, the energy bill must diversify our energy supply by developing 
alternative sources of energy like ethanol or biodiesel. We need to 
promote safe, clean nuclear power. And to create more energy choices, 
Congress should provide tax credits for renewable power sources such as 
wind, solar, and landfill gas. We must also continue our clean coal 
technology projects so that we can use the plentiful source of coal in 
an environmentally friendly way. The bill must also support 
pollution-free cars and trucks, powered by hydrogen fuel cells instead 
of gasoline.

"Finally, the energy bill must help us find better, more reliable ways 
to deliver energy to consumers. In some parts of the country, our 
transmission lines and pipelines are decades older than the homes and 
businesses they supply. Many of them are increasingly vulnerable to 
events that can interrupt and shut down power in entire regions of the 
country. We must modernize our infrastructure to make America's energy 
more secure and reliable."
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050416.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 
<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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20200416/aaae9e67/attachment.html>