[TheClimate.Vote] January 12, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*January 12, 2021*/

[flood costs add up]
*Climate change has cost the U.S. billions of dollars in flood damage, 
study finds*
MON, JAN 11 2021
- Intensifying rainfall fueled by climate change has caused nearly $75 
billion in flood damage in the U.S. in the past three decades, Stanford 
University researchers confirmed in a new study.
- The findings shed light on the heightened risk that homeowners, 
builders, banks and insurers face as global temperatures continue to rise.
- Even in states where long-term rainfall hasn’t changed, the wettest 
storms have intensified and caused more financial damage as a result, 
according to the report...
- -
The losses resulting from worsening extreme rains comprise nearly 
one-third of the total financial cost from flooding in the U.S. between 
1988 and 2017, according to the report, which analyzed climate and 
socioeconomic data in order to quantify the relationship between 
changing historical rainfall trends and historical flood costs...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/climate-change-has-cost-the-us-billions-of-dollars-in-flood-damage.html 


- -

[journal Nature]
*Global warming already driving increases in rainfall extremes*
Precipitation extremes are affecting even arid parts of the world, study 
shows.
Jeff Tollefson
Get ready for rain: climate change is already driving an increase in 
extremes of rainfall and snowfall across most of the globe, even in arid 
regions. And this trend will continue as the world warms, researchers 
report today in Nature Climate Change.

The role of global warming in unusually large rainfall events in 
countries from the United Kingdom to China has been hotly debated. But 
the latest study shows that climate change is driving an overall 
increase in rainfall extremes.

“In both wet and dry regions, we see these significant and robust 
increases in heavy precipitation,” says Markus Donat, a climate 
scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, who is the 
study’s lead author.
*Not So Dry*
Warm air holds more moisture, and previous research has found that 
global warming is already increasing the odds of extreme precipitation 
events. But climate models typically differ as to how that might play 
out at regional scales. Some models suggest that dry areas could become 
drier, but the new findings confirm that this rule does not hold over 
land; some areas see declines, but most get wetter.

“The paper is convincing and provides some useful insights,” says Sonia 
Seneviratne, a climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of 
Technology in Zurich. “What is particularly new in this article is the 
demonstration of such a signal for observed changes in dry regions.”...
- -
These studies bolster predictions from models that more extreme weather 
is on the way, while confirming that even arid regions that may not be 
accustomed to heavy precipitation could be affected. The study may not 
offer any details about what kind of events to prepare for, but it does 
put governments on alert, Donat says. “It is probably a good idea to 
invest in infrastructure that helps in dealing with heavier 
precipitation, in particular if you are not yet used to those events.”
https://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508



[a neurotoxin called domoic acid]
*Study pins toxic algae blooms at Oregon’s southern border on climate 
change*
By Erik Neumann (Jefferson Public Radio)
Jan. 2, 2021
New research from West Coast oceanographers provides insight into the 
cause of toxic algae blooms that caused shellfish closures and marine 
mammal deaths near the Oregon-California border.

The study, published in the journal Frontiers in Climate, shows climate 
change and a 2013-2015 Pacific Ocean heatwave, often called “the blob,” 
have together increased the growth of toxic algae off the coastline from 
Cape Mendocino, California to Cape Blanco, Oregon...
- -
Now that the researchers understand the cause of the algal blooms, 
Trainer and her colleagues are working with coastal managers to create 
harmful algal bloom bulletins to provide early warnings to the public 
and allow for more targeted marine fisheries closures, rather than 
widespread restrictions.

“We can provide a short-term forecast, sort of like a weather forecast, 
that projects out three to five to seven days what the risk is for the 
harmful algae to come to the coast,” Trainer said.
https://www.opb.org/article/2021/01/02/study-pins-toxic-algae-blooms-at-oregons-southern-border-on-climate-change/



[Important video of Nordhaus]
*The economics of climate change by William Nordhaus*
Jan 28, 2020
UBS Center
What is the optimal policy to address climate change? What are the costs 
of climate change? And how will technology and innovation help?

In his keynote, Professor William Nordhaus of Yale University combined 
the interdisciplinary insights from natural sciences and economics to 
address a set of critical questions.

William Nordhaus has been awarded the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economic 
Sciences for ‘integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic 
analysis’, jointly with Paul Romer. His pioneering work on climate 
economy models greatly advanced understanding of the complex 
interactions between climate change and human economic activities. It 
provided a sound scientific foundation for climate policy prescriptions 
discussed in international fora and adopted in many industrial countries 
since the late 20th century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DG5i8BGaXo


[Wildfire]
*‘Rebuilding Paradise’ Director Ron Howard On Lessons To Learn From 
Devastating California Wildfire – *Contenders Documentary
By Matthew Carey - January 10, 2021
UPDATED with video: The California town of Paradise was home to about 
26,000 people in November 2018 when a catastrophic wildfire reduced most 
of the town to ash. Ron Howard’s National Geographic documentary 
Rebuilding Paradise begins with footage of the community in flames.

“That opening sequence is far more harrowing than anything I’ve ever 
staged as a director of scripted movies,” Howard says during Deadline’s 
Contenders Documentary awards-season event. “Suddenly this beautiful 
town is destroyed…in a matter of three hours.”

As the title suggests, Rebuilding Paradise focuses not so much on the 
fire but the aftermath—the succession of challenges the community faced...
https://deadline.com/2021/01/rebuilding-paradise-ron-howard-interview-nat-geo-documentary-contenders-1234670676/



[Top climate scientist]

*"Cautious optimism" about fighting climate change: Salon talks with 
author of "The New Climate War"*
Climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann tells Salon that we aren't doomed 
— but we need to hold polluters accountable
By MATTHEW ROZSA - JANUARY 11, 2021

I have had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Michael E. Mann, a 
distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, 
on many occasions, and for good reason: he's affable, sincere, and good 
at explaining things. Indeed, you don't become one of the world's 
foremost authorities on climate change without those kinds of traits. In 
his career, Mann has repeatedly worked to break down the science of 
global warming in comprehensive but accessible ways. His efforts to 
raise public awareness have always struck a balance between emphasizing 
the gravity of the situation facing the planet and expressing cautious 
optimism that, if we implement the right policies, we can stave off 
ecological catastrophe.

This is the goal of his new book, "The New Climate War: The Fight To 
Take Back Our Planet." Mann's thesis is clear: We must fight the people 
who lie about the threat of man-made global warming, whether out of 
financial self-interest, ideological dogmatism, or because they have 
been duped by others. At the same time, we must also avoid succumbing to 
the temptation to assume that all is lost. Instead it is necessary to 
push for bold policies that will address climate change in a meaningful 
way, from a revised version of the Green New Deal, effective carbon 
pricing, and making it so that renewable energy can compete fairly 
against fossil fuels.

All of this can — and must — be done, Mann argued. Citizens have the 
power to demand change.

Below is my conversation with Mann. The transcript has been lightly 
edited for clarity and context.

What inspired you to write "The New Climate War"?

It's the fact that we see this nefarious, and in many ways more 
insidious, attack on climate action today, even as the impacts of 
climate change become so obvious to the person on the street that it's 
not credible to deny that it happened. The same powerful vested 
interests in the fossil fuel industry and those who do their bidding, I 
call them being activists because their agenda is one of climate 
inaction. For decades they've been denying that climate change is real, 
attacking the science, trying to undermine public understanding of the 
problems. And now that that's really not possible, they have turned to a 
whole new set of tactics in their efforts to block progress on climate. 
And that's really what the book is about. I felt it was important to 
talk about that as one who had sort of been in the cross hairs of 
climate change deniers for decades and witnessed firsthand their tactics 
and how they've evolved, sort of as a warning to people.

The battle isn't won yet. The forces of inaction are no longer denying 
the basic science, but they're doing all these other things to prevent 
action. And that's what the book is about. [There is] deflection of 
attention from the needed policies and systemic changes to individual 
behavior — as if it's just about us and our diet and how we travel, and 
the way to solve the climate problem is for us to just be better people. 
Of course, individual action is important. We should all do things that 
serve to decrease our environmental footprint and often they make us 
healthier. They save us money. There are lots of good reasons to do 
them, but they're no substitute for the needed policies at the very top, 
the massive decarbonization of our economy, which is necessary.

Now also by focusing attention on individual behavior, they get us 
fighting with each other, shaming people, pointing fingers at each other 
about their carbon impurity, and that divides the community. So they get 
climate advocates arguing with each other. That means there is no longer 
a unified voice calling for action. There is doom and despair-mongering, 
an attempt to convince some that it's too late to do anything about it 
anyway, so why even bother? Unfortunately a lot of climate advocates of 
good intentions and of goodwill have been hoodwinked and taken in and 
weaponized in that effort to despirit them to the point of 
disengagement, so they're no longer on the frontlines demanding action. 
There is also the promotion of false solutions like geoengineering or 
carbon capture, basically anything but solving this problem at its 
source, which is getting off fossil fuels, because that's inconvenient 
to the fossil fuel industry. So they'd rather have the discussion of 
solutions focus on all these distracting, fake solution to the problem.

I've interviewed you many times before. I've read your book. I've read 
other things you've written. The science that you present is 
incontrovertible. There really is no debate among scholars as to whether 
or not climate change is real or as to whether or not we need to take 
very bold steps in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save the 
planet. The problem is the people who argue against you aren't doing so 
in good faith. This isn't a situation where you have two sides that are 
looking at the same information and just happen to draw different 
conclusions. This is a situation in which one side has an ulterior 
motive and is lying to millions, if not billions, of people about the 
truth, because of that motive. How do you address that? I almost feel 
like on some level, this isn't a climate change issue. This is a 
psychological issue. How do you get people who are being hoodwinked by 
bad faith arguments to realize that?

It's a great question. And that is something I try to accomplish in the 
book. The first challenge is to just get people to recognize it. 'Look, 
they're pulling the wool over your eyes. They're manipulating you.' And 
I use, for example, the classic tale now of the 'Crying Indian' public 
service announcement from the early 1970s that we all thought was 
empowering about cleaning up our environment. But it turns out we 
ultimately learned that it was a propaganda campaign hatched on Madison 
Avenue by Coca-Cola and the beverage industry to defeat bottle bills, to 
focus on individual behavior. 'We just have to pick up those bottles and 
cans ourselves or unleash the Boy Scouts to clean up the bottles and 
cans. We don't need a deposit. We don't need a systemic solution to this 
problem.'

So in telling some of those stories, my hope is that sort of this 
storytelling approach to describing the problem will really help people 
understand what is happening and how they're being manipulated. Because 
that's really ultimately the solution — to recognize these tactics, to 
push back against them, to make sure other people are aware of them, and 
to not be distracted from the matter at hand, from the prize, which is 
climate action.

And we're now, literally today, we've seen political developments — not 
the mob we've seen in the Capitol — but the election of two Democrats 
now turning over the Senate to Democratic hands means there's a real 
opportunity for meaningful policy progress. We've got a president who's 
on board, we've got a Congress controlled by Democrats who are on board. 
There's a real opportunity now for meaningful climate action. Let's not 
be distracted or fooled. Let's focus on the matter at hand, which is 
making progress.

I completely agree, but I actually do want to focus for a moment on the 
mob in Washington, because here is the thing: I would assume that people 
would get that passionately angry about the fact that a handful of 
wealthy people are emitting all of these greenhouse gasses, and are 
pushing for policies that make it harder for us to restrict greenhouse 
gas emissions, and that is gradually destroying the planet. My nephew is 
going to grow up in a world that is very different from the one that I 
grew up in as a result. Do you think that would be the sort of thing 
that makes people angry, and instead they're angry because President 
Donald Trump isn't allowed to steal an election?

It's a mnemonic, not a precise, scientific model, but sort of the 
reptilian brain and the way that Republicans are particularly effective 
at tapping into the circuitry of the reptilian parts of the human brain, 
preying on all of our worst instincts — selfishness, prejudice, all of 
that — to weaponize this mob that we're watching on television right now 
to do their bidding for them. And just as you alluded to earlier, Matt, 
the irony being that they are mobilizing, weaponizing, this army rabble 
to engage in actions that are completely detrimental to their own 
interests, in the present and ultimately down the road. I like to think 
that even these mob protesters in DC  care about their children, they 
care about their grandchildren. They want a better life for them.

And so in a sense, they've been manipulated. They are victims of a 
misinformation campaign. It's a disinformation campaign, enticed by red 
meat thrown out by Republican operatives to prey on their worst 
instincts. Sadly in many cases they are beyond help at this point, and 
we have to fight on knowing that for many cases they're not to be on the 
right side of this issue, but we don't need them. They're a fringe, 
they're not a majority. We can solve this problem without them. We just 
can't allow them to get in the way.

With the favorable change in winds and in Washington DC, we'll see what 
happens. I think that we're going to move away from this over the next 
couple of years. It will be rocky. It won't be easy, but I see the 
reason for cautious optimism that we're steering the ship in a different 
direction now.

I do want to have a bit of a lighter note. I noticed that you have 
blurbs on the back of your book jacket from Leonardo DiCaprio, Don 
Cheadle, Greta Thunberg and Al Gore. Was that cool, being able to get 
them to read your book and offer this commentary?

Well, as you know, I hang out with them at cocktail parties most of the 
time, and so it was easy to! I was just kidding. It obviously feels 
great to be able to engage opinion leaders, people who have a reach as 
well beyond your own. and I very much support forging alliances with 
people in the entertainment and in media who have an opportunity to 
really get that message out, who can reach a much larger audience than 
you can. And many of these folks are sort of personal heroes of mine — 
Thunberg, Leo. You know, he could have easily spent his life doing 
nothing but exploiting the excesses of wealth and fame that he's 
achieved, but instead he takes a beating from fossil fuel interests and 
climate change deniers because he's focused on actually trying to do 
something about this and other problems.

So I have a lot of respect for the folks that you mentioned. It makes it 
very meaningful when obviously when they have nice things to say about 
the books. I see this really as an ecosystem of sorts, and scientists 
and science communicators play a role, and opinion leaders and 
celebrities play a role. And when we can sort of pool our resources and 
work together, it just makes it that much easier to achieve the changes 
that we need to see. It was very gratifying to me, in short.

We were talking about how celebrities have this platform in which they 
can draw attention to these important issues. I remember growing up and 
all I would hear from conservatives is, "Oh my God, if I hear one more 
liberal celebrity preach..." and then they elect a president whose 
resume is literally nothing but being a celebrity. No political, no 
military experience whatsoever. Leonardo DiCaprio has a comparable 
resume in terms of if he wanted to run for president. And he has better 
policy ideas!

Leo actually has some brains! I've met him and talked with him and he's 
a sharp, intelligent, thoughtful, good, honest person. Everything you 
would want actually in a politician. You're so right, and what it 
exposes is just the fundamental hypocrisy of sort of the right-wing 
noise machine that we've seen that in spades during the Trump years, 
engaging in extreme examples of the very vices they like to attribute to 
progressives. Part of it is the diversionary. It's projection. They're 
masters. Trump is a master of projection and Republicans become masters 
of projection.

That's how they've been able to manipulate this rabble into supporting 
an agenda, the right-wing conservative profits agenda that goes against 
their own interests. That can only happen when you're able to sort of 
master the arts of projection and deflection. And that's the reality. 
And it's why I spend some time talking about that part of it. For 
example, this idea of getting us fighting with each other about 
individual behavior, it divides us, but also deflects attention from the 
needed causes toward changes in individual behavior. But another aspect 
of that, it's a great way to cynically, to try to target celebrities 
like Leo DiCaprio and thereby sort of reduce their effectiveness as 
spokespeople by accusing them of hypocrisy, as a great way to discredit 
them and their message. And it's almost always based on distortion and 
outright fabrication...

MATTHEW ROZSA
Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History 
from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History 
at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.

https://www.salon.com/2021/01/10/cautious-optimism-about-fighting-climate-change-salon-talks-with-author-of-the-new-climate-war/



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - January 12, 2000 *
The National Academy of Sciences issues a report indicating that "strong 
evidence exists to show that the warming of the Earth's surface is 
'undoubtedly real,' and that surface temperatures in the past two 
decades have risen at a rate substantially greater than average for the 
past 100 years."

    WASHINGTON -- Despite differences in temperature data, strong
    evidence exists to show that the warming of the Earth's surface is
    "undoubtedly real," and that surface temperatures in the past two
    decades have risen at a rate substantially greater than average for
    the past 100 years, says a new report by the National Research
    Council of the National Academies.

    The report examines the apparent conflict between surface
    temperature and upper-air temperature, which has led to the
    controversy over whether global warming is actually occurring. The
    Earth's surface temperature has risen about 0.4 to 0.8 degrees
    Celsius - or 0.7 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the last century,
    the report says. But data collected by satellites and balloon-borne
    instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low- to
    mid-troposphere - the atmospheric layer extending up to about 5
    miles from the Earth's surface. Climate models generally predict
    that temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the
    surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing
    the warming.

    "The differences between the surface and upper-air trends in no way
    invalidates the conclusion that the Earth's temperature is rising,"
    said John M. Wallace, chair of the panel that wrote the report and
    professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington in
    Seattle. "But the rapid increase in the Earth's surface temperature
    over the past 20 years is not necessarily representative of how the
    atmosphere is responding to long-term, human-induced changes, such
    as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse'
    gases. The nations of the world should develop an improved climate
    monitoring system to resolve uncertainties in the data and provide
    policy-makers with the best available information."

    While a combination of human activities and natural causes has
    contributed to rising surface temperatures, other human and natural
    forces may actually have cooled the upper atmosphere. For example,
    natural events such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 tended
    to decrease atmospheric temperature for several years. And burning
    coal and oil for energy produces tiny aerosol particles in the
    atmosphere that can have a cooling effect. Upper-air temperatures
    also can be reduced by depletion of ozone in the stratosphere caused
    by chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals being emitted into the
    atmosphere. When these variables are accounted for in atmospheric
    models, satellite and balloon data more closely align with
    surface-temperature observations.

    Because global warming is a long-term process that can be masked by
    year-to-year climate variability, warming trends are most clearly
    revealed by surface temperature measurements - which have been
    recorded daily at hundreds of locations for more than a century.
    These data indicate that the Earth is, in fact, warming, the panel
    said. Satellites have been collecting data from the upper atmosphere
    for only about 20 years.

    The differences between surface temperature and upper-air
    temperature records also may be partially attributed to
    uncertainties in temperature measurements, the panel said. A better
    climate monitoring system is needed to ensure continuity and quality
    in data collection. Measurements should include not only temperature
    and wind, but also ozone, water vapor, clouds, and aerosols.
    Scientists need to perform a more comprehensive analysis of the
    uncertainties in surface, balloon, and satellite temperature data.
    Natural as well as human-induced changes should be accounted for in
    model simulations of atmospheric temperature variability.

    Data also need to be accessible in a form that enables a number of
    different research groups to use and improve them, the report says.
    To ensure access, data should be available in electronic databases
    to the entire scientific community.

    The study was funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration and the Aluminum Corporation of America. The National
    Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National
    Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a
    private, nonprofit institution that provides science advice under a
    congressional charter.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010726224601/http://clinton5.nara.gov/Initiatives/Climate/sciences.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 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/20210112/f7ce965c/attachment.html>