[✔️] April 21, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Wed Apr 21 10:05:21 EDT 2021
/*April 21, 2021*/
[All time high for 3 million years]
*420 Blaze It (The Planet)**
*Molly Taft - Yesterday
We finally did it—we’ve hit 420!
Parts per million, that is. Not to harsh your mellow on today of all
days, but there’s more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than in any
other point in recorded history.
Earlier this month, scientists at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii took a
measurement of more than 421.21 ppm of atmospheric carbon—the first time
researchers have captured a reading over 420 ppm since record-keeping
began. This new record is just the latest in a startlingly steep uptick
of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past several decades. When
record-keeping started in the 1950s, measurements averaged around 315
ppm. This month’s record means that we’re halfway to doubling our
preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide. Bummer.
On this auspicious day, we’d like for our readers to take a beat to
think about what the world was like the last time we hit 420 ppm—it’s
pretty wild, dude. Atmospheric carbon was this high more than 3 million
years ago, during what is known as the Pliocene epoch, where natural
processes led to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Studying this time period could give us hints as to what
we’re in store for if we keep pumping carbon dioxide levels up at the
rate we’re at.
Research using ice cores suggests that the last time carbon dioxide
levels were this high, temperatures around the world were around 12.4
degrees Fahrenheit (8 degrees Celsius) warmer than they are now. The
Arctic was almost certainly ice-free in the summers;...
- -
The Eocene was much warmer than today, and warmer than the Pliocene as
well. Temperatures were between 12.2 to 25.2 degrees Fahrenheit (9 to 14
degrees Celsius) higher than they are today. It’s not likely we’ll see
those types of conditions in our lifetimes or our grandchildren’s
lifetimes. And a lot of bad things would have to happen for carbon
dioxide to reach those levels. Still, the fact that we’re even bringing
the Eocene into the discussion here speaks to just how much and how
quickly we’re pushing the Earth’s limits. It took the Earth literal
millions of years to go through these types of climatic shifts; in just
a couple of centuries, we seem to be accelerating the car off the cliff.
Anyway, happy 4/20, everyone. Celebrate responsibly (and legally, if you
can), remember that the cannabis industry needs a lot of environmental
reforms, and don’t think too much about this depressing climate change
stuff—that’s for Earth Day.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/420-blaze-it-the-planet-1846724875
[brief, ethical warning to Congress - 6 min video]
*Sen. Whitehouse DESTROYS fossil fuel industry, citizens united on
climate change issue*
Apr 18, 2021
The Hill
During a hearing entitled "The Cost of Inaction on Climate Change" this
week, Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse delivered his
opening remarks in which he blasted Citizens United and the fossil fuel
industry for contributing to climate change.
[-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqsD9wFA1kg&t=107s]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqsD9wFA1kg
[my sarcastic observation that mainstream media is moving so slowly.
-CBS reports that "a lot of scientists think"...]
*How the Earth's oceans protect us from climate change — and how that
may "come back and bite us"*
"this may be the most self-indulgent story I've ever done. But it's in
a good cause."
- -
A lot of scientists think those weather extremes and those rising waters
are evidence the "bite back" has already begun.
When you sail through these waters, you sail through the wake of history
– natural and human. But now, for the first time, one of the animal
species on this planet is determining the course of the whole world's
future. That species, of course, is us.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oceans-climate-change-eye-on-earth-our-planet-in-peril/
[how to change]
*Building back better needs radical change − by us*
April 20th, 2021, by Alex Kirby
We’ve got the money, we’ve got the knowhow, but averting the worst of
the climate crisis needs radical change − by us.
LONDON, 20 April, 2021 − With the Covid-19 pandemic still raging across
the globe, plenty of thinkers are devoting their time to what comes
next. The hopeful argue for an effort to Build Back Better. The less
hopeful doubt that that will be easy, or perhaps even possible, and not
necessarily because of the pandemic itself. The pragmatists say the
future can be different, if humans can achieve radical change in
themselves and their lives.
They start from where we are and try to plot a way through to where we
want to be. One of these is a UK think tank, the Cambridge
Sustainability Commission on behaviour change and the climate crisis,
whose report is published by the Rapid Transition Alliance (RTA).
The RTA argues that humankind must undertake “widespread behaviour
change to sustainable lifestyles … to live within planetary ecological
boundaries and to limit global warming to below 1.5°C” (the more
stringent limit set by the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The Commission’s report notes that some of us need to change our
behaviour more than others. “Globally, the wealthiest 10% of the world’s
population is responsible for roughly half of all greenhouse gas
emissions, while the poorest half is responsible for less than 10%,” it
says.
“The lifestyle emissions of the richest in society are actually
increasing … Relying on conscientious individuals to ‘do their bit’ will
never be enough to put society on a sustainable pathway without
substantial shifts in the behaviour of the polluter elite.”...
https://climatenewsnetwork.net/building-back-better-needs-radical-change-%e2%88%92-by-us/
- -
[source matter 4 page executive summary]
*Changing our ways?****Behaviour change and the climate crisis*
Can we change the way we live to address the climate crisis? It is
increasingly
clear that alongside shifts in policy, service provision and
technological innovation,
far-reaching changes in lifestyles are also required if we are to avoid
dangerous
levels of global heating. After a long period of neglect, sustainable
behaviour
change is now rising up the climate policy agenda. The most recent IPCC
and UNEP
Emissions Gap reports have begun to devote more attention to the role of
behaviour
change in reaching ambitious climate goals, and governments increasingly
view it as
a necessary element of their climate change strateg
https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/
*Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling behaviour change -
Executive Summary*
https://www.rapidtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Cambridge-Sustainability-Commission-on-Scaling-behaviour-change-report-Executive-Summary.pdf
[Reuters reminds us ...]
*At the start of every disaster movie is a scientist being ignored …*
In 1988, U.S. scientist James Hansen went before Congress and testified
about his research into the warming of the planet. More than 30 years
later, Hansen’s prediction that the average global temperature could
rise by about 1 degree Celsius (almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2019 has
come to pass. His warning, and appeals for action from Hansen and
others, went largely ignored by policymakers, despite an avalanche of
confirmatory research from ensuing generations of climate scientists.
The Hot List
A REUTERS SERIES
We wanted to know: Who are the scientists who have dedicated their lives
to studying the climate, knowing that their work may go unheeded and do
little to avert a climate catastrophe? And how do they deal with it? As
one of them said: “I have a mountain of data on my shoulders, but I feel
so powerless.”
Even the coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the enormous challenges the
scientists confront. Echoing divisive skirmishes over climate change,
politics and science have done battle, as some governments appeared to
dismiss or minimize established research on the virus’ spread. And
despite a drop of 7% in emissions last year as the world ground almost
to a halt, carbon dioxide levels continued to rise and are higher than
at any point in human history. No year was hotter than 2020.
It’s a reminder that even as the tumultuous events of the past year
grabbed headlines, climate change relentlessly thrummed in the
background. The Siberian tundra is thawing as the Arctic sees
record-breaking temperatures. Australia and California have burned, and
will burn again. Tropical storms are bigger and stronger than ever.
- -
To structure this exploration of the world’s top climate scientists,
data journalist Maurice Tamman has created a system of identifying and
ranking climate academics according to how influential they are: how
much they’ve published, how often those papers have been cited relative
to others in the same field, and how often those papers have been
referenced in the lay press, social media and other public policy papers.
It’s important to note that this isn’t a ranking of the “best” climate
scientists. It’s a measure of influence, which naturally evolves over
time, based on information available as of December 2020. The data was
provided by the British-based company Digital Science, made available
through its Dimensions portal.
This effort examined at least 350,000 papers, 99% of which were
published after Hansen's famous testimony. It has yielded a list of
1,000 top scientists. And from this list, we’ve selected six, four men
and two women, whose stories capture the sweep of climate science today.
These are not just stories about the science, though, but about the
people behind the science.
You’ll visit them at home, in places as far apart as Thuwal, Saudi
Arabia, and Melbourne, Australia. You’ll holiday with one on Block
Island, off the Northeast U.S. coast. You’ll see one in the water, at
work in the Great Barrier Reef.
One of them plays bass guitar in a band made up of other scientists,
while another sings in one of the world’s largest amateur orchestral
choirs. One advises Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, while
another played a hand in the environmental awakening of the late British
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. One once went into hiding after
falling out of favor with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. One used a
100,000-year-old chunk of Antarctic ice in a gin and tonic.
As 2021 begins, there is renewed hope for action on stemming the causes
of climate change. After a four-year American retreat, new U.S.
President Joe Biden is promising to re-engage on this existential issue.
Many of the world’s largest fuel users and producers – including China,
most European countries and even Saudi Arabia – have pledged to
significant reductions in carbon dioxide over the next 30 years.
If the world’s nearly 200 nations are going to act, it is these
scientists’ work that will gird the decisions and choices. These are
their stories.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/climate-change-scientists/
- -
[list of top 1000 climate scientists- according to Reuters]
*The Reuters Hot List*
*This is the Reuters list of the world’s top climate scientists.* To
build it, we created a system of identifying and ranking 1,000 climate
academics according to how influential they are.
Filed April 20, 2021
This series tells the stories of the scientists who are having the
biggest impact on the climate-change debate – their lives, their work
and their influence on other scientists, the public, activists and
political leaders.
To identify the 1,000 most influential scientists, we created the Hot
List, which is a combination of three rankings. Those rankings are based
on how many research papers scientists have published on topics related
to climate change; how often those papers are cited by other scientists
in similar fields of study, such as biology, chemistry or physics; and
how often those papers are referenced in the lay press, social media,
policy papers and other outlets.
The data is provided through Dimensions, the academic research portal of
the British-based technology company Digital Science. Its database
contains hundreds of thousands of papers related to climate science
published by many thousands of scholars, the vast majority published
since 1988.
The Hot List series
The Pioneer
The Rarity
The Adviser
The Paradox
The Cassandra
The Target
The List
The list combines three rankings:
For the first ranking, we selected researchers based on the number of
papers published under their names through December 2020, as indexed in
the Dimensions system. We screened for climate-related work by examining
the papers’ titles or abstracts – brief descriptions of the research –
for phrases closely connected to climate change, such as “climate
change” itself, global warming, greenhouse gases and other related
terms. These are papers that explicitly focus on climate change rather
than mention it in passing. To be included in our count, a paper had to
be cited by at least one other scientist at least once.
The first ranking is based on how many papers meet that criteria for
each scientist. A rank of one was given to the scientist with the most
papers, and 1,000 to the scholar with the fewest.
The second ranking is based on what Dimensions describes as a “Field
Citation Ratio.” For each paper, a ratio is calculated “by dividing the
number of citations a paper has received by the average number received
by documents published in the same year and in the same Fields of
Research category,” according to Dimensions. This ranking is meant to
measure the influence of scientists’ work among their peers.
For example, atmospheric sciences, a subset of earth sciences, is a
field of research, as is zoology, which belongs to the biological group
of sciences. A zoology-related paper with a ratio of 1.0 means it was
cited at the average rate compared to other zoology papers; a paper with
a score of 2.0 means it was cited at twice the rate of the average
zoology paper. Climate change is a multidisciplinary science, and this
approach accounts for differing citation rates in differing fields.
For the Hot List, we calculated an average citation ratio for each
scientist’s climate-change papers, then we ranked the ratios of all the
scholars on our list. A rank of one was assigned to the scholar with the
highest average ratio, and 1,000 to the researcher with the lowest.
The third ranking is based on Digital Science’s Altmetric Attention
Score, a measure of a research paper’s public reach. Most papers receive
a score based on references in a variety of publications, including the
mainstream media, Wikipedia, public policy papers and social media sites
such as Twitter and Facebook. The ranking is meant to measure the
influence of scientists’ work in the lay world.
For the Hot List, we assigned a median Altmetric score to each
scientist’s papers and then ranked those scores, with a rank of one
going to the highest score and 1,000 to the lowest.
The final score for each scientist is based on the sum of each ranking –
the lower the score, the greater the scholar’s overall influence, and
thus the higher he or she ranks on the Hot List.
For example, Keywan Riahi, the head of Austria’s International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis, is the highest-ranking scientist on the
Hot List. He ranks 47th for papers published, 10th for his Field
Citation Ratio and 30th for his Altmetric Attention Score, for a score
of 87.
Riahi, who studies energy systems, said his ranking is probably the
result of IIASA’s openness to sharing data and models with other
scientists. “That creates long-standing collaborations, and, of course,
when we innovate, we pass innovation on, and all that’s important for
the scientific network,” he said.
Some notes of caution. First, the Hot List doesn’t claim to be a rank of
the “best” or “most important” climate scientists in the world. It’s a
measure of influence.
Second, the Hot List has some limitations inherent in our methodology.
For instance, our analysis targeted the titles and abstracts of papers,
not the full texts, so we may have missed some studies that do touch on
climate change. The Altmetric score can be skewed upward if one or a few
of a scientist’s papers have particularly high scores and their
remaining papers have comparatively low scores.
Also, the Hot List favors the prolific. The first of our three metrics
ranks scientists based on the number of papers published. The other two
metrics – for citation ratios and public reach – are designed to
compensate for this possible bias, but they might not fully do so.
1 Keywan Riahi
2 Anthony A Leiserowitz
3 Pierre Friedlingstein
4 Detlef Peter Van Vuuren
5 James E Hansen
6 Petr Havlík
7 Edward Wile Maibach
8 Josep G Canadell
9 Sonia Isabelle Seneviratne
10 Mario Herrero
11 David B Lobell
12 Carlos Manuel Duarte
13 Kevin E Trenberth...
[1000 names listed - ]
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/
[Discussion with a climate scientist about irreversible retreat and
critical slowing]
*Dr Sebastian Rosier | Tipping Points In Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier*
Premiered April, 20, 2021
Nick Breeze
https://genn.cc Visit: https://patreon.com/genncc
Welcome to Shaping The Future. In this episode, I am speaking with Dr
Sebastian Rosier about his work studying the tipping points in
Antarctica’s Pine Island Glacier.
Antarctica is of course absolutely huge and the Pine Island Glacier is
just one part of it. If Pine Island collapsed into the ocean it would
raise sea-levels by several metres which would be catastrophic for many
coastal areas around the world.
Sebastian discusses his view of whether we have crossed this tipping
point that is part of this complex system being impacted by the billions
of tonnes of carbon pollution we pump into the atmosphere each year.
This all highlights that this is the decade we must get to work
restoring the biosphere if we are avoid the consequences of extreme
global heating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6PGFVLDZMQ
[season has started in my area]
*Early start to Washington’s wildfire season has officials worried*
April 20, 2021
By Christine Clarridge
Seattle Times staff reporter
Last week was the first time we hit 70 degrees in the Seattle area this
year, and already wildfire concerns are upon us.
The state Department of Natural Resources responded to 91 fires last
week and is gearing up for what could be a bad season with a temporary
burn ban on state lands in some parts of Western Washington and the
Puget Sound area.
The temporary burn restrictions on DNR-protected lands have extended to
South Puget Sound in addition to the Northeast, Northwest and Pacific
Cascade region, the agency said.
“Higher than normal temperatures, low relative humidity, low moisture
content in ground fuel, lack of precipitation, expected high east wind,
and multiple wildland brush fires” make the ban prudent, the agency said
on its website.
The Green Valley Fire, east of Auburn in King County, which started
Sunday from a burn pile that got out of control, led to Level 2
evacuations in the immediate area. That means residents were told the
fire risk was significant and that they should consider evacuating or be
ready to leave at a moment’s notice.
The brush fire had burned 50 acres by Tuesday and was 50% contained,
according to officials with Mountain View Fire & Rescue.
The National Weather Service warned that continued dry and warm
temperatures have dried out grasses, making fires more likely.
https://twitter.com/waDNR_fire/status/1383504455610494978
Christine Clarridge: 206-464-8983 or cclarridge at seattletimes.com; on
Twitter: @c_clarridge.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/officials-concerned-by-early-start-to-washingtons-wildfire-season/
- -
https://twitter.com/waDNR
- -
https://burnportal.dnr.wa.gov/
[DeSmogBlog as database on disinformation records]
*The Greenwashing Files: Fossil Fuel Giants Accused of ‘Deceptive’
Advertising*
A major new catalogue of fossil fuel company adverts based on DeSmog’s
research shows the gap between their public image and the reality of
their operations.
ANALYSIS
By Rich Collett-White and Rachel Sherringtonon - Apr 18, 2021
Fossil fuel companies could face legal challenges over their misleading
advertising, after a DeSmog investigation uncovered the extent of their
“greenwashing”.
Environmental lawyers ClientEarth have put companies on notice with the
publication of the Greenwashing Files. The analyses, which use DeSmog’s
research, show how adverts of major fossil fuel companies and energy
producers continue to over-emphasise their green credentials, giving the
public a misleading impression of their businesses.
DeSmog analysed the advertising output of Aramco, Chevron, Drax,
Equinor, ExxonMobil, Ineos, RWE, Shell and Total, and compared this with
the reality of the companies’ current and future business activities.
ClientEarth submitted a complaint against BP’s advertising in 2019,
before the company decided to withdraw its “Possibilities Everywhere”
campaign. The lawyers say other fossil fuel companies could face similar
challenges if they mislead the public through their advertising. The
group is calling for tobacco-style advertising bans and health warnings
to counter fossil fuel companies’ “deceptive” marketing.
DeSmog’s investigation found messaging that touts companies’ climate
pledges without being transparent about their large emissions
contributions is widespread across advertising campaigns and social
media promotions.
The adverts regularly highlight the companies’ preferred solutions to
climate change — from carbon capture and storage, to experimental algae
biofuels, and investment in renewable energy sources — without being
open about the small percentage of overall investment allocated to these
technologies, nor their various limitations.
The Greenwashing Files lay bare the contrast between the public image
these adverts create, and the reality of the fossil fuel companies’
activities...
- -
*Greenwashing Files*
ClientEarth lawyer Johnny White said the collection of adverts showed
the fossil fuel companies were involved in a “great deception”.
“We need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. But instead of leading a
low-carbon transition, these companies are putting out advertising which
distracts the public and launders their image,” he said.
“These adverts are misrepresenting the true nature of companies’
businesses, of their contribution to climate change, and of their
transition plans,” he added, saying that “we cannot underestimate the
real world impact this advertising has on the pace of change.”
You can find the full set of adverts and analyses here -
https://www.clientearth.org/the-greenwashing-files
https://www.desmog.com/2021/04/18/the-greenwashing-files-fossil-fuel-companies-advertising/
- -
[partner source]
*The problem with greenwashing*
Science tells us that if we burn the fossil fuel reserves that have
already been found, odds are we are unlikely to keep warming below 1.5°C
– the world’s aim under the Paris climate agreement. Studies show there
are plans to produce 120% more fossil fuels by 2030 than is consistent
with staying under this threshold. We simply cannot burn all the world’s
stock of coal, oil and gas and hope to avoid climate disaster.
Companies that are still pushing new fossil fuel exploration and
projects cannot justify calling themselves 'sustainable' and cannot
claim to be changing in line with society’s aims under the Paris
Agreement goals.
Yet companies’ marketing campaigns create the impression they are at the
forefront of a rapid transitioning to low-carbon energy. And they are
increasingly using social media to target younger audiences, including
paying social media ‘influencers’. Some companies are doing more to grow
low-carbon energy than others. But company marketing rarely reflects the
full picture of their business strategy and investments.
There may seem to be nothing wrong with companies highlighting ‘green’
projects. But these ads are a problem where they create a misleading
impression of their overall business and its environmental harms. And
the danger is that this obstructs the world’s efforts to move away from
fossil fuels – thus endangering human rights across the world. Marketing
campaigns can mislead the public on the true environmental cost of
continuing to pump and use fossil fuels in the climate emergency.
Unfortunately, if fossil fuel companies protect their business models in
this way, then the science is clear: our planet and our societies face
catastrophic consequences.
https://www.clientearth.org/the-greenwashing-files
[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - April 21, 1993 *
April 21, 1993: President Clinton pledges to combat carbon pollution in
an Earth Day address.
http://c-spanvideo.org/program/DayAd
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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/20210421/1098d774/attachment.htm>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list