[TheClimate.Vote] December 18, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*December 18, 2020*/

[many weathers define climate]
*How climate change is affecting winter storms.*
Dec. 17, 2020,
By John Schwartz
The major winter storm that hit the Eastern United States on Wednesday 
and Thursday probably prompted some people to ask, “What happened to 
global warming?”

But although it’s becoming increasingly clear that climate change does 
have an effect on storms, the relationship can be complex and, yes, 
counterintuitive. “There were these expectations that winter was 
basically going to disappear on us,” said Judah Cohen, director of 
seasonal forecasting at AER, a company that provides information to 
clients about weather and climate-related risk.

Although winters are becoming warmer and somewhat milder over all, 
extreme weather events have also been on the increase, and especially in 
the Northeastern United States, as Dr. Cohen pointed out in a recent 
paper in the journal Nature Climate Change. From the winter of 2008-9 
until 2017-18, there were 27 major Northeast winter storms, three to 
four times the totals for each of the previous five decades.

One of the factors potentially feeding storms is a warmer atmosphere, 
which can hold more water vapor; not only can that mean more 
precipitation, but when the vapor forms clouds, “it releases heat into 
the air, which provides fuel for storms,” said Jennifer Francis, a 
senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center. Also 
potentially important, but less understood, she noted, is “the increased 
tendency for the jet stream to take big swoops north and south,” setting 
up weather phenomena like the dreaded polar vortex.

Does that mean this particular storm has been fueled by climate change? 
Jonathan E. Martin, a professor in the department of atmospheric and 
oceanic sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, cautioned 
against drawing quick conclusions.

Because of the “enormous natural variability” in storms and the weather 
they deliver, “I think it is a dangerous business attributing individual 
winter storms, or characteristics of them, to climate change,” he said. 
And this storm in particular, he added, is getting a lot of its moisture 
from water vapor evaporated off the Atlantic Ocean, which complicates 
the picture.

Dr. Francis agreed that any connections are complex, but added, “all 
storms now form in a greatly altered climate, so there’s little doubt 
that the same storm decades ago would not be the same.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/17/climate/climate-change-winter.html



[More reasons to wear a mask]
*Wildfire smoke, a potential infectious agent*
Leda N. Kobziar1, George R. Thompson III2

Science  18 Dec 2020:
Vol. 370, Issue 6523, pp. 1408-1410
DOI: 10.1126/science.abe8116

Wildfires over the past 3 years have resulted in lengthy episodes of 
smoke inundation across major metropolitan areas in Australia, Brazil, 
and the United States. In 2020, air quality across the western United 
States reached and sustained extremely unhealthy to hazardous levels for 
successive weeks from August through November. Although the pulmonary 
and cardiovascular consequences of human exposure to smoke particulate 
matter are extensively researched, there remains little recognition or 
monitoring of a smoke component with potentially important health 
repercussions: microbes.

Wildland fire is a source for bioaerosols that differ in composition and 
concentration from those found under background conditions, and most of 
these microbes in smoke are viable. Bioaerosols, composed of fungal and 
bacterial cells and their metabolic by-products, are known to affect 
human health. At the same time, respiratory allergic and inflammatory 
diseases, including asthma and bronchitis, are exacerbated by exposure 
to wildfire smoke. However, the risk of infection to the upper and lower 
respiratory tract after exposure to wildfire smoke is frequently 
overlooked. Smoke-related immunologic deficits and inflammatory 
responses may exacerbate the effects of inhalation of airborne microbial 
particulates and toxicants in smoke. The intersection of these 
epidemiological trends and smoke microbial content has yet to be 
addressed in public health and atmospheric sciences, despite compelling 
overlaps of increasing mycoses rates and increasing wildfire smoke in 
some locations (e.g., aspergillosis, invasive mold infections, and 
coccidioidomycosis in the western United States).

Smoke plume temperatures are determined by fire behavior and 
meteorological factors and can exceed presumed temperature tolerances of 
some microbial organisms. However, a high degree of variability in 
fuels, ambient air mixing, and fire behavior results in a range of 
biologic niches and responses, especially at smaller scales. The energy 
release during a wildland fire varies in space and time by orders of 
magnitude, so that microscopic-scale biota likely experience 
considerable heterogeneity in heat transfer and may escape the duration 
of high temperature that leads to mortality. In addition to 
species-specific resistance to heat, this may help explain why some 
soil-dwelling microbes appear tolerant of, and even proliferate under, 
high temperatures following high-intensity and/or high-severity 
wildfire. Pyrogenic carbon produced by wildland fire provides temporary 
habitat for soil microbes and could potentially function similarly in 
air for microbes aerosolized from soils and both living and dead plant 
materials: Microbial cells have been found to associate positively with 
particulate matter. Particulate matter in smoke confers attenuation of 
ultraviolet-B (UV-B) by 80% and UV-A by up to 74%—radiation that would 
otherwise decrease bioaerosol viability. Additionally, water vapor is a 
product of biomass combustion and may also play a role in vectoring 
microbes from the combustion zone into a smoke column, limiting 
desiccation of entrained organisms.

Microbes may also be drawn into convective columns from outside the 
combustion zone. For example, a plume from the El Portal wildfire in 
Yosemite National Park, California, caused updraft winds of 13.5 m s−1 
(10), whereas dry spore–discharging fungi can be emitted from soils with 
surface winds of only ∼1 m s−1 (11). Once aerosolized, microbes, spores, 
or fungal conidia <5 µm in aerodynamic diameter have the potential to 
travel hundreds of miles, depending on fire behavior and atmospheric 
conditions, and are eventually deposited or inhaled downwind of a fire. 
Smoke emissions from high-intensity, large wildfires have been 
transported across continents, increasing particulate matter 
concentrations in distant locations. The consequences for more immediate 
populations, such as firefighters on the front line who often spend up 
to 14 consecutive days in smoky conditions, are likely greater given 
that microbial concentration in smoke is higher near the source of a 
fire (see the figure). For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention counts firefighting as an at-risk profession for 
coccidioidomycosis, an infection caused by a pathogenic fungus well 
known to be aerosolized when soils are disturbed.

So far, studies measuring smoke transport of microbes have been limited 
to direct measures during prescribed fires and indirect measures of 
microbes or their chemical indicators in distal smoke-polluted air. Even 
in low-intensity prescribed fires, microbial cell counts from smoke 
averaged 6.7 × 104 cells m−3, approximately five times that of 
background concentrations (1.3 × 104 cells m−3), and equivalent to ∼7.2 
× 109 cells m−2 burned area. The estimated lowest cell counts leading to 
reduced airway conductance, function, and inflammation effect in 
nonsensitive populations range from 1 × 104 to 1 × 105 m−3 for 
aerosolized fungal spores. Therefore, the potential for wildland fire's 
microbial content to affect humans who breathe in smoke, especially from 
high-emissions wildfires or for multiple weeks, is appreciable. How far 
and which microbes are transported in smoke under various conditions are 
critical unknowns, but the relevance of these questions is increasing 
with longer wildfire seasons and higher severity trends.

Addressing these unknowns will require a multidisciplinary approach 
representing expertise in fire ecology, environmental microbiology, 
epidemiology, public health and infectious disease, and atmospheric 
sciences. The knowledge gained has the potential to answer questions 
about the consequences of wildland fire specific to each of these 
disciplines. For example, what roles does fire play in the spread of 
disease, and can natural reservoirs and affected populations be linked 
through smoke to predict public health problems before they occur? 
Exploration of infections and indicators such as antibiotic use in 
populations subjected to known amounts and durations of wildfire smoke 
is a promising first direction.

Given that climate change impacts on wildfire are predicted to lead to 
total emissions (greenhouse and trace gases plus particulate matter) 
increases of 19 to 101% in California alone through 2100, it is 
important that atmospheric and public health sciences expand their 
perspectives to include the potential impact of smoke's microbial cargo 
on human populations. This is especially relevant where smoky skies are 
more likely to be a seasonal norm rather than a rare event.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6523/1408


[sort of like the tides]
*Huge methane cache beneath Arctic could be unlocked by the moon*
Methane release changes with the tides.
Their discovery implies that scientists have been underestimating 
greenhouse gas emissions in the Arctic
"What we found was unexpected and the implications are big. This is a 
deep-water site. Small changes in pressure can increase the gas 
emissions but the methane will still stay in the ocean due to the water 
depth. But what happens in shallower sites? This approach needs to be 
done in shallow Arctic waters as well, over a longer period. In shallow 
water, the possibility that methane will reach the atmosphere is 
greater," Knies said.

This newly discovered phenomenon also raises questions about how rising 
sea levels and ocean warming, both of which are caused by climate 
change, will interact. Because high tides reduce methane emissions, it's 
possible rising sea levels, which come with higher tides, might 
partially counterbalance the threat of increased gas emissions being 
caused by a warming ocean.

Originally published on Live Science.
https://www.livescience.com/moon-trigger-methane-release-arctic.html

- -

[source material in Nature Communications]
*Impact of tides and sea-level on deep-sea Arctic methane emissions*
Nabil Sultan, Andreia Plaza-Faverola, Sunil Vadakkepuliyambatta, Stefan 
Buenz & Jochen Knies
Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 5087 (2020)

    Abstract
    Sub-sea Arctic methane and gas hydrate reservoirs are expected to be
    severely impacted by ocean temperature increase and sea-level rise.
    Our understanding of the gas emission phenomenon in the Arctic is
    however partial, especially in deep environments where the access is
    difficult and hydro-acoustic surveys are sporadic. Here, we report
    on the first continuous pore-pressure and temperature measurements
    over 4 days in shallow sediments along the west-Svalbard margin. Our
    data from sites where gas emissions have not been previously
    identified in hydro-acoustic profiles show that tides significantly
    affect the intensity and periodicity of gas emissions. These
    observations imply that the quantification of present-day gas
    emissions in the Arctic may be underestimated. High tides, however,
    seem to influence gas emissions by reducing their height and volume.
    Hence, the question remains as to whether sea-level rise may
    partially counterbalance the potential threat of submarine gas
    emissions caused by a warmer Arctic Ocean.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18899-3



[climate solutions Washington Post]
*Battling America’s ‘dirty secret’*
Climate change raises the risk from failing sewage systems. So Catherine 
Coleman Flowers is working for a new way to deal with waste.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/12/17/climate-solutions-sewage/?arc404=true


[$chadenfreude]
*Solar just made Banks write off a $1 bn. Australian Coal Plant as 
Worthless; What’s in Your Retirement Portfolio?*
JUAN COLE 12/17/2020
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Daniel Mercer at the Australian 
Broadcasting Company reports that the newest coal-fired power plant in 
the country, the 10-year-old, nearly $1 bn. USD Bluewater facility, has 
been written off as worthless by its investors.
- -
Mercer reports that financial analysts are predicting that there is 
going to be a lot of this sort of thing.

In fact, if any of you has coal stocks in your retirement portfolio, I’d 
drop them like a hot potato.

The plant was co-owned by the Japanese companies Sumitomo and Kansai, 
who bought it nine years ago for 1.2 billion Australian dollars ($911 
mn. USD). Both have written it down to zero as a tax loss.

Nithin Coca at Ozy reports that

“Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Mizuho Financial Group and Sumitomo 
Mitsui Financial Group — all announced that they would gradually reduce 
investment in overseas coal-fired power plants. Then, in July, the Japan 
Bank for International Cooperation, one of the world’s largest aid and 
development financiers, announced it too would be shifting away from coal. “
Part of the skittishness of Japanese banks comes from the policies of 
the new Japanese prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, who succeeded the 
ailing Shinzo Abe in mid-September. Although Suga is from the same party 
and is an Abe protege, he has struck out in a new direction with regard 
to clean energy, something Abe had never been interested in. (I know; I 
did some energy consulting in Japan, pushing renewables, about a decade 
ago. They said they were in the economic doldrums, and surrounded by 
enemies. I told them, ‘solar and wind are just technology; you’re good 
at that stuff.’ They said things like ‘Japan is small and cloudy and 
where would you put the panels?’ I was told afterwards, “they didn’t 
listen to you.”)

Suga announced in early October that Japan will aim for carbon 
neutrality by 2050, and is reviewing its 2030 goals so as to make sure 
it is in a position to hit the 2050 target.

Japanese banks see the writing on the wall. There is no way to get to 
carbon neutrality on any realistic timeline unless the world dumps coal 
yesterday.

Likewise, South Korea will shutter all its 30 coal plants by 2034 and 
will try to quadruple its renewables by then.

It isn’t just Australia, Japan and South Korea where the writing is on 
the wall.

Colorado air quality officials have just ordered 3 coal-fired plants, 
which had planned to close in 2030, to take steps to accelerate that 
timeline. Because of polluting air haze and because of Colorado’s own 
2030 emissions goals, Tri-State, Xcel and Platte River Power will have 
to shutter the plants no later than 2028. The federal Clean Air Act has 
a haze reduction rule for national parks, and the Colorado Air Quality 
Control Commission was able to invoke it for the Rocky Mountain National 
Park.

Burning coal is the most carbon-intensive thing humans do. In addition 
to spewing dangerous heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere, which acts 
like the detonation of large numbers of atom bombs up there to heat the 
earth, burning coal also puts mercury (a nerve poison) into the 
environment, along with particulate matter that contributes to lung and 
heart disease.

Although the US has cut coal emissions by 45% in the past decade, and 
retired 9.3 gigawatts worth of the nasty stuff in 2020 (a 30% 
reduction), most of the remaining super-emitting plants are expected to 
survive to at least 2025 unless the Environmental Protection Agency can 
put pressure on them. So argues Benjamin Storrow at E&E.

So that is Mr. Biden’s task. Find legal ways to regulate coal out of 
business ASAP.

Our children’s and grandchildren’s lives depend on it.
https://www.juancole.com/2020/12/australian-worthless-retirement.html
- -
*Bluewaters coal-fired power station written off as worthless as 
renewables rise*
By Daniel Mercer
Key points:
-- The Bluewaters coal-fired plant in Collie is barely ten years old
-- Its Japanese owners have written it off as worthless
-- The move is being pinned on the rise of renewable energy
The owners of Australia's newest coal-fired power station have written 
down the value of the asset to zero, wiping out a $1.2 billion 
investment in the face of an onslaught of renewable energy...
- -
"I think this is an absolutely classic example of what we're likely to 
see going forward across Australia and around the world," Mr Nicholas said.

"In a developed power market, a relatively new — really, very new — 
coal-fired power station has been deemed to have effectively no value.

"It's a very important example that's flown under the radar."

In its results presentation, Sumitomo said it "recognised losses on the 
investment" in Bluewaters after reassessing what revenues it was likely 
to recover from the asset.
- -
Mr Nicholas said it was difficult to know whether Bluewaters' problems 
with coal supply from the beleaguered Griffin Coal mine or increased 
competition from renewable energy was a bigger reason in the write-down.

However, he said "dramatic shift" toward green sources of power such as 
rooftop and utility-scale solar and wind farms suggested other companies 
with coal-fired plants would have to follow suit...
- -
"In Western Australia, the penetration of rooftop solar is huge, amongst 
the highest in the world," Mr Nicholas said.

"In Australia, the cost of utility-scale renewables is often lower than 
the cost of fuel for coal-fired power plants.

"So, the long-term future for coal-fired power plants is looking fairly 
grim and banks are responding to that — they don't want to finance coal 
anymore."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-17/bluewaters-coal-fired-power-station-written-off-books/12990532


[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - December 18, 2014 *

The New York Times editorial page observes:
"Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday announced a statewide ban on the 
extraction of natural gas using a controversial drilling process called 
hydraulic fracturing. This was not an easy decision, but it was the 
right one. Many geologists and industry leaders believe that the deep 
shale formations underneath the state’s southern tier, known as the 
Marcellus Shale, contain bountiful supplies of natural gas. But 
extracting the gas, the governor concluded, carried — at least for now — 
unacceptable risks to the environment and human health.

"In making what amounted to his first major decision since his 
re-election last month, Mr. Cuomo embraced the conclusion of state 
health officials that important health issues remain unresolved and that 
it was impossible to declare that hydraulic fracturing is safe for the 
environment or human health...

"Though he did not intend it as such, Mr. Cuomo’s decision sends an 
important message to both the industry and the Obama administration, 
which is drawing up new rules aimed at ensuring that wells are carefully 
drilled, that fugitive methane gases are captured and that wastewater is 
disposed of safely. The message from New York is that not only ordinary 
citizens but health officials and state leaders like Mr. Cuomo have 
serious doubts about all of these issues — doubts that a strong 
regulatory regime might help answer."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/opinion/gov-cuomo-makes-sense-on-fracking.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region 



/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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 mailing is text-only.  It does not carry 
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.  A 
text-only message can 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. 
Messages have no tracking software.
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/20201218/dfdf2490/attachment.html>