[TheClimate.Vote] March 8, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

Richard Pauli richard at theclimate.vote
Mon Mar 8 11:25:55 EST 2021


/*March 8, 2021*/

[Homeland Security News Wire]
*Threshold for Dangerous Warming Will Likely Be Crossed between 2027 and 
2042*
2 March 2021
The threshold for dangerous global warming will likely be crossed 
between 2027 and 2042 – a much narrower window than the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s estimate of between now and 
2052. In a new study, researchers introduce a new and more precise way 
to project the Earth’s temperature. Based on historical data, it 
considerably reduces uncertainties compared to previous approaches.

The threshold .... between 2027 and 2042 -- [is] a much narrower window 
than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s estimate of between 
now and 2052. In a study published in Climate Dynamics, researchers from 
McGill University introduce a new and more precise way to project the 
Earth’s temperature. Based on historical data, it considerably reduces 
uncertainties compared to previous approaches.

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using 
climate models for decades. These models play an important role in 
understanding the Earth’s climate and how it will likely change. But how 
accurate are they?

Dealing with uncertainty
Climate models are mathematical simulations of different factors that 
interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as the atmosphere, ocean, ice, 
land surface and the sun. While they are based on the best understanding 
of the Earth’s systems available, when it comes to forecasting the 
future, uncertainties remain...
- -
“Now that governments have finally decided to act on climate change, we 
must avoid situations where leaders can claim that even the weakest 
policies can avert dangerous consequences,” says co-author Shaun 
Lovejoy, a professor in the Physics Department at McGill University. 
“With our new climate model and its next generation improvements, 
there’s less wiggle room.”
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20210302-threshold-for-dangerous-warming-will-likely-be-crossed-between-2027-and-2042
- -
[Source material Springer Link]
*An observation-based scaling model for climate sensitivity estimates 
and global projections to 2100*
Raphaël Hébert, Shaun Lovejoy & Bruno Tremblay
Climate Dynamics volume 56, pages1105–1129

    *Abstract*
    We directly exploit the stochasticity of the internal variability,
    and the linearity of the forced response to make global temperature
    projections based on historical data and a Green’s function, or
    Climate Response Function (CRF). To make the problem tractable, we
    take advantage of the temporal scaling symmetry to define a scaling
    CRF characterized by the scaling exponent H, which controls the
    long-range memory of the climate, i.e. how fast the system tends
    toward a steady-state, and an inner scale τ≈2 years below which the
    higher-frequency response is smoothed out. An aerosol scaling factor
    and a non-linear volcanic damping exponent were introduced to
    account for the large uncertainty in these forcings. We estimate the
    model and forcing parameters by Bayesian inference which allows us
    to analytically calculate the transient climate response and the
    equilibrium climate sensitivity as: 1.7+0.3−0.2  K and 2.4+1.3−0.6 
    K respectively (likely range). Projections to 2100 according to the
    RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios yield warmings with respect to
    1880–1910 of: 1.5+0.4−0.2K, 2.3+0.7−0.5  K and 4.2+1.3−0.9  K. These
    projection estimates are lower than the ones based on a Coupled
    Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 multi-model ensemble; more
    importantly, their uncertainties are smaller and only depend on
    historical temperature and forcing series. The key uncertainty is
    due to aerosol forcings; we find a modern (2005) forcing value of
    [−1.0,−0.3]Wm−2 (90 % confidence interval) with median at −0.7Wm−2.
    Projecting to 2100, we find that to keep the warming below 1.5 K,
    future emissions must undergo cuts similar to RCP 2.6 for which the
    probability to remain under 1.5 K is 48 %. RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5-like
    futures overshoot with very high probability.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05521-x



[Important, informational video https://youtu.be/W9CcdjEqUag ]
*Skepticism: Why critical thinking makes you smarter | Bill Nye, Derren 
Brown & more | Big Think*
Mar 7, 2021
Big Think
Skepticism: Why critical thinking makes you smarter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

It's not always easy to tell the difference between objective truth and 
what we believe to be true. Separating facts from opinions, according to 
skeptic Michael Shermer, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, and 
others, requires research, self-reflection, and time.

Recognizing your own biases and those of others, avoiding echo chambers, 
actively seeking out opposing voices, and asking smart, testable 
questions are a few of the ways that skepticism can be a useful tool for 
learning and growth.

As Derren Brown points out, being "skeptical of skepticism" can also 
lead to interesting revelations and teach us new things about ourselves 
and our psychology.

Read Michael Shermer's latest book "Skeptic: Viewing the World with a 
Rational Eye" at https://amzn.to/3c7vP58​
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

TRANSCRIPT:

LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I like to keep an open mind but not so open that my 
brains fall out. And that's the key point. We have to skeptically assess 
the information we receive. We can't be gullible because when we get a 
lot of information, it's absolutely certain that some of that 
information is wrong. And so we have to always filter what we get. And 
we have to ask ourselves the following question: "How open does my brain 
have to be to accept that information? Does it have to fall out?" And by 
that, I mean when someone tells you something you have to ask "Is this 
consistent with my experience? Is it consistent with the experience of 
other people around me?" And if it isn't, then probably there's a good 
reason to be skeptical about it; it's probably wrong. If it makes 
predictions that also appear to be in disagreement with things that you 
observe around you, you should question it.

And so we should never take anything on faith. That's really the mantra 
of science, if you want, that faith is the enemy of science. We often 
talk about a loss of faith in the world today. You don't lose anything 
by losing faith. What you gain is reality. And so skepticism plays a key 
role in science simply because we also are hard-wired to want to 
believe. We're hard-wired to want to find reasons for things. In the 
savanna in Africa, the trees could be rustling and you could choose to 
say, "Well, there's no reason for that." Or, "Maybe it's due to a lion." 
And those individuals who thought there might be no reason, never lived 
long enough to survive to procreate. And so it's not too surprising, we 
want to find explanations for everything. And we create them if we need 
to, to satisfy ourselves, because we need to make sense of the world 
around us. And what we have to understand is that what makes sense to 
the universe, is not the same as what makes sense to us. And we can't 
impose our beliefs on the universe. And the way we get around that 
inherent bias is by constantly questioning both ourselves and all the 
information we receive from others. That's what we do in science and it 
works beautifully in the real world as well.

MICHAEL SHERMER: The problem is this. None of us has the truth. The only 
way to find out if you're deceiving yourself or not, if you've gone off 
the rails, if you're wrong in some way, is to listen to other people who 
disagree with you. I started encountering other people that disagreed 
with me. You know, we-never-went-to-the-moon people, conspiracy people, 
whatever. And I thought, "Okay, so how do we know, if I don't know 
what's coming down the pike say in 10 years from now, if I was gonna 
teach my students how to think critically, what are the key points, like 
just basic questions they could ask?" So, it begins with one: How 
reliable is the source of the claim? Here's the claim, how reliable is 
it? What's the evidence for it? What's the quality of the evidence? 
Where does it come from? Who said that? Is this some fake news, 
alternative site thing, or is it The Wall Street Journal or The New York 
Times? The source really matters. Has anyone tried to disprove the 
claim? This is super important because everybody thinks they're right 
and every website has testimonials about this product or that idea. The 
question is not "What do your supporters think?" but "What do the people 
who don't agree with you think?" Because that's what I wanna know. Has 
anyone run an experiment to try to disprove your theory? And so in 
science, this is as basic as it gets. Karl Popper called this the 
Principle of Falsification. That is, we can't ever prove a theory 
correct, but we can disprove it by having an experiment that shows it's 
wrong.

So, if you can't falsify it, what are you really doing? And my favorite 
story on...
Read the full transcript at 
https://bigthink.com/videos/critical-thinking-skills
See the video  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9CcdjEqUag



[consistent journalist]
*The climate reporting of Elizabeth Kolbert*
One of the most closely watched journalists has the luxury of space, 
depth, and time in her books and her frequent New Yorker articles.By 
SueEllen Campbell | Friday, March 5, 2021
New Yorker staff writer Elizabeth Kolbert has long been one of the most 
prolific and closely-watched journalists regularly reporting on climate 
change. Her pieces are well worth reading, her topics serious and, at 
the same time, enjoyable, perhaps because her style is so personable and 
lucid: she takes us along as she explores and learns.

Note: The New Yorker allows several free reads per month before its 
paywall appears.

If you missed Kolbert’s influential 2006 book Field Notes from a 
Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change, it deserves your time even 
now. Or you can read the three magazine pieces (“The Climate of Man,” 
2005) that comprise much the book: first piece, second piece, and third 
piece.

Since then, in addition to her Pulitzer-winning book The Sixth 
Extinction, Kolbert has written interesting articles about:
--direct air carbon capture (2017), a technology that might save us if 
it ever becomes practical in scale and cost,
-- ice melt on Greenland (2016), and
-- Miami (2015) and its rising sea level problem

Kolbert’s new book, Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future, looks 
at how thoroughly we have altered our planet and the kinds of possibly 
compensatory, possibly dangerous alterations humans are making now, or 
may decide to make. Her two biggest topics are climate 
change/geoengineering and the loss of biodiversity/bioengineering.

Because this book is just now out, there are several excellent 
interviews available for review in transcript form, including these three:
-- with Ezra Klein, on the Ezra Klein Show podcast (at this New York 
Times link or via other sources for podcasts); note that Klein’s past 
podcasts include other interviews focused on climate change;
-- with Dave Davies, on Fresh Air (National Public Radio); and
-- with Jeff Goodell, at Rolling Stone; Goodell’s journalistic beat 
overlaps with Kolbert’s, as in his fine 2013 article about Miami and 
subsequent book, The Water Will Come (2017)
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/03/the-climate-reporting-of-elizabeth-kolbert/



[Classic issue revived from 2 years ago]
*Trending Globally: What Is Methane, and Why Is It So Bad for the Climate?*
Feb 13, 2021
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs
On this episode Sarah talks with Watson Senior Fellow and member of 
Watson’s Climate Solutions Lab Deborah Gordon. Deborah is an expert on 
one of the most destructive greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere: 
methane. Thanks to the work of people like Deborah, the Biden 
Administration recently made methane reduction one of its top climate 
priorities. But as Deborah explains, methane has some peculiar physical 
and financial characteristics that make curbing it much easier said than 
done. (Originally broadcast in October 2019.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5aHPb2KIFU



[Military Council on Climate Change - video interview]
*Climatizing Security: Protecting Americans in the Age of Climate Change*
Mar 2, 2021
Cimatico
Sherri Goodman discusses the implications of climate change on national 
security. She gives an overview of climate threat multipliers and how it 
affects the military. She talks about the roles of international 
institutions and the US military in managing climate security risks and 
advancing clean energy. She also analyzes the implications of Biden’s 
new executive order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H8AFWGcICM



[erudite title]
*Game Theory and Climate Change Hardcover *– Illustrated, April 3, 2018
by Parkash Chander (Author)
Despite the growing consensus on the need for action to counteract 
climate change, complex economic and political forces have so far 
prevented international actors from making much headway toward resolving 
the problem. Most approaches to climate change are based in economics 
and environmental science; in this book, Parkash Chander argues that we 
can make further progress on the climate change impasse by considering a 
third approach―game theory.

Chander shows that a game-theoretic approach, which offers insight into 
the nature of interactions between sovereign countries behaving 
strategically and the kinds of outcomes such interactions produce, can 
illuminate how best to achieve international agreements in support of 
climate-change mitigation strategies. Game Theory and Climate Change 
develops a conceptual framework with which to analyze climate change as 
a strategic or dynamic game, bringing together cooperative and 
noncooperative game theory and providing practical analyses of 
international negotiations. Chander offers economic and game-theoretic 
interpretations of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement and 
argues that the Paris Agreement may succeed where the Kyoto Protocol 
failed. Finally, Chander discusses the policy recommendations his 
framework generates, including a global agreement to support development 
of cleaner technologies on a global scale.

Review
Written exceptionally clearly, this book lays out a novel theory of 
cooperative games and coalition formation as it applies to environmental 
problems―and in the process makes significant progress in reconciling 
cooperative and noncooperative game theory. -- Benjamin Ho, Vassar College

Climate change is an extraordinarily challenging problem, partly because 
of its global commons nature. For this reason, game theory can bring 
valuable insights to considerations of alternative public policies, as 
well as to international negotiations among the countries of the world. 
In Game Theory and Climate Change, Parkash Chander adds in significant 
ways to the relevant scholarly literature at the interface of climate 
change, economics, and game theory. -- Robert N. Stavins, Harvard University

In this important and timely book, Chander, a leading environmental 
economist and game theorist, systematically develops a set of 
game-theoretic solutions to the grand challenge of global climate 
change. He convincingly demonstrates the value of integrating insights 
from both cooperative and noncooperative games, and the importance of 
side payments in improving international climate agreements. He advances 
important solution concepts such as subgame perfect agreements and 
incorporates important real-world features, such as heterogeneity across 
nations. I strongly recommend the book to researchers as well as 
practitioners interested in international climate negotiations. -- 
Jinhua Zhao, Michigan State University

The book will interest PhD students and game-theory experts. 
Recommended. ― Choice

This is a timely book, interpreting climate change negotiations in terms 
of game theory
concepts. The content of the book is based on a stream of papers 
published by the
author over more than 20 years. The book is aimed at economists who use 
finely crafted
mathematical models to explore possible solutions to complex social and 
environmental
problems. The extensive bibliography will be helpful to any newcomer in 
the field
of environmental economics. -- Alain B. Haurie ― MathSciNet




[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - March 8, 2012 *

  In a syndicated column, former Delaware Republican Party official 
Michael Stafford notes:

"The far-right’s capture of the GOP has gone largely unchallenged by 
more responsible voices within the Party. Jon Huntsman, for example, was 
the sole presidential candidate willing to directly confront the 
prevailing [right-wing] orthodoxy on climate and evolution. Perhaps this 
isn’t surprising, given the viciousness of the attacks directed at 
dissenters. The passion for purging and purity, and the primaries that 
resemble nothing so much as heresy trials, highlight a critical fact 
about the far-right. In Conservative Wonderland, 
dissent--thoughtcrime--is the political version of a capital offense."
http://themoderatevoice.com/140941/gop-stuck-in-a-conservative-wonderland/
http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/greenfront/2012/03/michael-stafford-gop-stuck-in-a-conservative-wonderland-.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/20210308/2e6c2c67/attachment.html>


More information about the TheClimate.Vote mailing list