[TheClimate.Vote] June 14, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

Richard Pauli richard at theclimate.vote
Sun Jun 14 10:08:53 EDT 2020 

/*June 14, 2020*/

[OK for info]
*Earth Just Had Its Record Warmest May, Multiple Analyses Found*
-- Three separate analyses found Earth had a record warm May in 2020.
-- NOAA's analysis found May 2020 tied 2016 as the planet's warmest 
since 1880.
-- The epicenter of unusual May warmth was in Russia.
May was cooler than average in parts of North America, Europe and Australia.
2020 could be the planet's warmest year in recent records.

May 2020 was Earth's warmest May in at least 141 years of temperature 
records, continuing a warming trend that could make 2020 the planet's 
warmest year.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies found May 2020 global 
temperatures were 1.02 degrees Celsius above the 1951-1980 average, the 
warmest May in their records dating to 1880, 0.06 degrees Celsius above 
the previous record warmest May in 2016.

That may not sound like much of a difference in temperature, but in the 
realm of globally-computed temperatures, it's significant. This was the 
first May in NASA's database in which global temperatures were over 1 
degree Celsius above average...
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2020-06-12-may-2020-global-temperatures-noaa-nasa-ecmwf



[checking the numbers]
*Climate worst-case scenarios may not go far enough, cloud data shows*
Modelling suggests climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon 
emissions than thought
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/13/climate-worst-case-scenarios-clouds-scientists-global-heating 




[Video - particulates]
*Effects of Aerosol Reductions on Arctic Temperature Rise and Rapid 
Arctic Sea Ice Loss: Part 2 of 2*
Jun 12, 2020
Paul Beckwith
Here, and in my last video I ask whether there is a large aerosol 
reduction influence on rising Arctic temperatures, and thus on rapid 
Arctic sea ice melt losses. Global aerosol reductions have occurred this 
year due to worldwide Coronavirus pandemic caused industrial shutdowns. 
I examine two recent scientific papers that look at aerosol/sea ice 
connections; namely "Impact of Aerosol Emission Controls on Future Sea 
Ice Cover" and "Elucidating the Role of Anthropogenic Aerosols in Arctic 
Sea Ice Variations".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf-rt08Cxn8



[another textbook where its high cost correlates to great importance]
*Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for 
Environmental Policy *
by Michael Oppenheimer (Author), Naomi Oreskes (Author), Dale Jamieson 
(Author), Keynyn Brysse (Author), Jessica O’Reilly (Author), Matthew 
Shindell (Author), Milena Wazeck (Author)...
Discerning Experts uncovers factors that can generate systematic bias 
and error,  and  recommends how the process can be improved. As the 
first study of the internal workings of large environmental assessments, 
this book reveals their  strengths and weaknesses,  and explains what 
assessments can--and cannot--be expected to contribute to public policy 
and the common good.
*Editorial Reviews*

    "This book provides an essential examination of the factors that
    shape and dictate our climate policy."

    "A meticulously researched study . . . . Oppenheimer et al. have
    produced what is essentially an assessment of assessments, and so
    its syntheses of insights across the case-study chapters add new
    knowledge even while they validate old knowledge that had formerly
    been largely anecdotal for most of us. This volume is therefore
    essential reading for participants of any large environmental
    assessment. . . . Discerning Experts is not exactly the ‘first’
    comparative study of multiple assessments, but it is an important
    one because of the extraordinary quality of its documentation and
    analysis as well as its clever creation of critical and instructive
    diversity across its three case studies. . . . Natural and physical
    scientists will see how their work can be transmitted across
    humanity to help inform opinion about what is going on and perhaps
    what to do--on the basis of rigorous science. Perhaps, the largest
    value will be found among the young scholars who do their homework
    after being invited to participate in their first assessment. After
    they read this volume, they will understand what to expect and why
    their signing on is a valuable investment of their time." --
    Climatic Change

    "What do the ozone layer, the Antarctic ice sheet, and acid rain
    have in common? All are sites of scientific 'assessments':
    prolonged, focused, collaborative, and often international work of
    experts. The thousands of pages of reports they draft offer the hope
    of summarizing scientific findings, extending scientific questions,
    and recommending policy outcomes. But do the elusive dream of
    consensus and fear of accusations of political bias produce watered
    down policy? Or should scientists be bolder in their assessments of
    impending disasters? Combining the insights of science, policy, and
    science studies, this valuable book offers a guide for experts of
    all kinds navigating the always messy world of policy-relevant science."
    -- Janet Vertesi, Princeton University

    "This book is a must-read for scientists and leaders of ongoing
    assessments, because it showcases the dilemma between consolidated
    knowledge, communicated as consensus, and challenges of
    uncertainties associated with emerging science."
      -- Thomas Stocker, University of Bern, Co-Chair of IPCC from 2008
    to 2015

    "This is the first major study of what scientists actually do when
    they 'assess' in an assessment. It makes graphic how the development
    and assessment of scientific knowledge are interwoven and the vexed
    production of 'policy-ready knowledge' from this. Altogether a rich,
    original, and thought-provoking work."
    -- Nancy Cartwright, Durham University

    "The book is rich with insights about the ways assessments
    contribute to the agendas of science and policy, often in unintended
    ways. Reading it can improve the contribution of every scientist
    thinking of working on an assessment and the value obtained by every
    policymaker planning to use one."
    -- Chris Field, Stanford University, co-chair of IPCC WGII,
    2008-2015 --This text refers to the hardcover edition.

https://www.amazon.com/Discerning-Experts-Scientific-Assessment-Environmental-ebook/dp/B07P2JYNNY
- - -
[Article in the Guardian asks if climate models are too conservative]
*The real reason some scientists downplay the risks of climate change*
Climate deniers often accuse scientists of exaggerating the threats 
associated with the climate crisis, but if anything they’re often too 
conservative...
- -
While climate skeptics and deniers often accuse scientists of 
exaggerating the threats associated with the climate crisis, the 
available evidence suggests the opposite. By and large, scientists have 
either been right in their assessments, or have been unduly 
conservative. We noticed a clear pattern of underestimation of certain 
key climate indicators, and therefore underestimation of the threat of 
climate disruption. When new observations of the climate system have 
provided more or better data, or permitted us to re-evaluate earlier 
conclusions, the findings for ice extent, sea level rise and ocean 
temperature have generally been worse than previously thought.
One of the factors that appears to contribute to this trend of 
underestimation is the perceived need for consensus, or what we call 
"univocality": the felt need to speak in a single voice.

Many scientists worry that if they publicly air their disagreement, 
government officials will conflate their differences of opinion with 
ignorance and use this as justification for inaction.

Others worry that even if policy-makers want to act, they will find it 
difficult to do so if scientists fail to send an unambiguous message. 
Therefore, scientists actively seek to find their common ground, and to 
focus on those areas of agreement. In some cases, where there are 
irreconciliable differences of opinion, scientists may say nothing, 
giving the erroneous impression that nothing is known.

How does the pressure for univocality lead to underestimation? Consider 
a case in which most scientists think that the correct answer to a 
question is in the range one to 10, but some believe that it could be as 
high as 100. In this case, everyone will agree that it is at least one 
to 10, but not everyone will agree that it could be as high as 100. 
Therefore, the area of agreement is one to 10, and this will be reported 
as the consensus view. Wherever there is a range of possible outcomes 
that includes a long, high-end tail of probability, the area of overlap 
will lie at or near the low end.

We are not suggesting that every example of under-estimation is caused 
by the factors we observed in our work, nor that the demand for 
consensus always leads to underestimation. But we found that this 
pattern occurred in all of the cases that we studied. We also found that 
the institutional aspects of assessment, including who the authors are 
and how they are chosen, how the substance is divided into chapters, and 
guidance emphasizing consensus, also generally tilt in favor of 
scientific conservatism.

Knowing this, what do we do?

To scientists, we suggest that you should not view consensus as a goal. 
Consensus is an emergent property, something that may come forth as the 
result of scientific work, discussion and debate. When that occurs, it 
is important to articulate the consensus as clearly and specifically as 
possible. But where there are substantive differences of opinion, they 
should be acknowledged and the reasons for them explained. Scientific 
communities should also be open to experimenting with alternative models 
for making and expressing group judgments, and to learning more about 
how policy makers actually interpret the findings that result. Such 
approaches may contribute to assessments being more useful tools as we 
face the reality of adapting to the climate crisis and the disruptions 
that will occur.

For political leaders and business people, we think it is important for 
you to know that it is extremely unlikely that scientists are 
exaggerating the threat of the climate crisis. It is far more likely 
that things are worse than scientists have said. We have already seen 
that the impacts of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are 
unfolding more rapidly than scientists predicted. There is a high 
likelihood that they will continue to do so, and that the IPCC estimates 
- that emissions must be rapidly reduced, if not entirely eliminated, by 
2050 - may well be optimistic. The fact that this conclusion is hard to 
swallow does not make it untrue.

And for ordinary citizens, it is important to recognize that scientists 
have done their job. It is now up to us to force our leaders to act upon 
what we know, before it is too late.

Dale Jamieson, Michael Oppenheimer and Naomi Oreskes are authors of 
Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for 
Environmental Policy. This piece is largely excerpted from that book
- - -
[video classic, deep discussion, advanced science]
*Did scientists get climate change wrong? *[no, of course not, but it is 
complicated]
Nov 15, 2019
Sabine Hossenfelder
Interview with Prof Tim Palmer from the University of Oxford.
A recent opinion piece in the New York Times argued that scientists got 
climate change wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fkCo_trbT8



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - June 14, 2005 *
ExxonMobil announces that it has hired former Bush administration 
official Philip Cooney, who had just resigned from the administration 
after the New York Times revealed his obsession with censoring climate 
science.

    *Exxon hires Bush energy aide*
    Published: June 14, 2005
    By Lisa Sanders
    Figure in global-warming row moves from White House
    DALLAS (MarketWatch) -- Philip Cooney, a former White House official
    who resigned last week, will join Exxon Mobil in the fall,
    MarketWatch learned late Tuesday.

    Cooney, most recently the chief of staff to President Bush's Council
    on Environmental Quality, left amid claims by critics that he edited
    reports on global warming to downplay concerns raised by the
    scientific community.

    Scientists have raised concerns that emissions from fossil fuels
    such as oil and coal are being trapped in the earth's lower
    atmosphere, creating a "greenhouse" effect that is accelerating
    changes in the climate.

    An Exxon Mobil XOM, 0.45% spokesman acknowledged that Cooney would
    join the company but declined further comment on what role he would
    play.

    The spokesman also said Exxon takes global warming seriously but is
    not convinced about how greenhouse-gas emissions affect climate change.

    Before coming to the White House, Cooney worked as lobbyist at the
    American Petroleum Institute, which is the chief representative of
    the oil and gas industry...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-mobil-hires-former-bush-environment-aide

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

/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/20200614/12b40e2b/attachment.html>

More information about the TheClimate.Vote mailing list