[✔️] November 30, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
👀 Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue Nov 30 07:01:29 EST 2021
/*November 30, 2021*/
/[ 3 min video clips from new movie of metaphorical sarcasm - on
Netflix Dec 24th ]/
*DON'T LOOK UP Trailer 2 (2021)*
Nov 16, 2021
ONE Media - Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Timothée Chalamet,
Ariana Grande, Meryl Streep - © 2021 - Netflix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISt6u1_gZcE
- -
/[ any mother is an expert ]/
*How Cate Blanchett Explains Climate Change to Her Teenage Kids: ‘It’s a
Terrible Conversation to Have’*
by ARIELLE TSCHINKEL
NOVEMBER 29, 2021
Parents with kids of any age know that raising teenagers is always an
adventure, but doing so amid several distinct global crises — including
dual pandemics of COVID-19 and a nationwide reckoning with systemic
racism, the rise of mis- and disinformation on social media, and the
worsening climate crisis — and it’s enough to make any parent want to
curl up in the fetal position and weep silently....
- -
In a new interview with PORTER, Net-a-Porter’s digital title, Cate
Blanchett explained how she’s tackling such tough topics with her four
children, all of whom are 20 and under. Naturally, she’s doing so with a
hefty dose of humor, but Blanchett is keeping it real, revealing that
talking about climate change is “a terrible conversation to have with
your 13-year-old.”
The actress, a longtime environmental activist, shared why it’s so
important for her to discuss real world issues with her four children:
her sons Dashiell, 20, Roman, 17, Ignatius, 13, and six-year-old
daughter, Edith — particularly as she promotes her forthcoming Netflix
movie, Don’t Look Up, a political satire. “People have to vote and
exercise their power,” she says. “I’m sounding like I’m on a soapbox,
which I’m not interested in, but it’s important to not give in. I’m not
giving up hope. As I say to my kids [on climate change], if we’re going
out, how do we choose to go out? It’s a terrible conversation to have
with your 13-year-old, isn’t it? But anyway. We do laugh around the
dinner table. That’s what’s good about Adam [McKay, the director of
Don’t Look Up]’s film. You have to laugh.”
All jokes aside, though, Blanchett is serious about the gravity of
global climate change. “Everyone is trying to be positive, talking about
1.5 degrees of global warming. But 1.5 would still be disastrous. We
need to be fucking scared… and demand change. Be collectively courageous
enough to face that fear and do something about it.”
Even though there’s a wide age range between her four kids, Blanchett is
all about having open and honest conversations about the importance of
media scrutiny and not immediately believing every salacious headline or
juicy tweet. “[We talk about it] a lot,” she says. “Because so much of
our so-called information comes through social media. I’m old enough to
have been taught at school what a primary, secondary and tertiary source
is. I say to the children when they mention something, ‘Where did you
read it? Who has [authenticated] that? You have to learn how to read an
image and article. And if you’re going to share something, you’d better
make sure you have checked the sources.'”
As expected, she shares that her kids react the way any kids of their
ages might. “Of course, they roll their eyes,” she admits. “But when you
hear them talk to their friends, I think they’re responsible. My son is
studying physics and philosophy, so he is really interesting to talk to
about [technology]. I don’t want to become a separated generation,
because I also feel responsible for the landscape he is about to emerge
into as an adult.”
https://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/2512328/cate-blanchett-climate-change-conversation-teenage-kids/
- -
/[ partial text of the interview -- for fashion pictures go to the
website
https://www.net-a-porter.com/en-sg/porter/article-275108dccf076ff6 ]/
Net-A-Porter
*LEADING LIGHT*
Few actors have the cachet of CATE BLANCHETT, but what really drives the
multi-Oscar-winning star these days? She talks to AJESH PATALAY about
choosing projects that provoke, overcoming parenting challenges and why
she’s not interested in ‘winning’ the scene
When Cate Blanchett finds her groove, it’s like a wind catching in her
sails – and a wonderful thing to behold.
- -
Five minutes later, we’re on to climate change and Blanchett is firing
on all cylinders. The subject is her next release, *Don’t Look Up*, a
boisterous satire from writer/director Adam McKay about two astronomers
(played by Leonardo DiCaprio, himself a fierce advocate for climate
action, and Jennifer Lawrence) who try to warn mankind about an
approaching comet that will destroy Earth. Everyone, from clickbait
pundits and tech billionaires to inept presidents, is subject to
ridicule in a story that becomes an obvious metaphor for global warming.
Blanchett plays a TV talk-show host, a model of artificiality with
bleached-blonde hair, blinding white teeth and impossibly bronzed skin.
“Actually, it’s a revolting moment when you wash that makeup off and see
the sludge going [down the drain],” she recalls. “It’s quite confronting.”
On the environmental matters that inform the film, she doesn’t sugar any
pills. “Everyone is trying to be positive, talking about 1.5 degrees of
global warming,” she says. “But 1.5 would still be disastrous. We need
to be fucking scared… and demand change; be collectively courageous
enough to face that fear and do something about it.” The movie, for all
its doomsday messaging, is actually a laugh a minute. And there’s a
particular thrill in seeing so many Hollywood stars onscreen at the same
time. One pivotal scene in the White House Situation Room brings
together five Oscar winners and one Oscar nominee: Blanchett, DiCaprio,
Lawrence, Meryl Streep (who plays a catastrophically useless president),
Mark Rylance and Jonah Hill.
“I’m not giving up HOPE. As I say to my kids [on climate change], if
we’re going out, how do we CHOOSE to go out? It’s a TERRIBLE
conversation to have with your 13-year-old, isn’t it?”...
- -
“In acting, people talk about [how] to ‘WIN’ the scene. No, we have to
MAKE the scene come ALIVE”...
- -
She also sees how polarized – and mired by point-scoring – public
discourse has become. “I’m very sad about the loss of genuine debate,”
she says, “where leaders, public intellectuals and everyday citizens try
to find common ground, try to understand the issue, rather than try to
win… Even in acting, people talk about [how] to ‘win’ the scene. No, we
have to make the scene come alive. And we might have to lose a bit here,
win a bit there.”
Given how social media is sharpening the debate, I wonder how much that
comes up in conversations with her teenage children Dashiell, Roman and
Ignatius, and her youngest, Edith. “A lot,” she says. “Because so much
of our so-called information comes through social media. I’m old enough
to have been taught at school what a primary, secondary and tertiary
source is. I say to the children when they mention something, ‘Where did
you read it? Who has [authenticated] that? You have to learn how to read
an image and article. And if you’re going to share something, you’d
better make sure you have checked the sources.’ Of course, they roll
their eyes. But when you hear them talk to their friends, I think
they’re responsible. My son is studying physics and philosophy, so he is
really interesting to talk to about [technology]. I don’t want to become
a separated generation, because I also feel responsible for the
landscape he is about to emerge into as an adult.”...
- -
“I say to the CHILDREN… ‘If you’re going to share something [on social
media], you’d better make sure you have checked the SOURCES.’ Of course,
they ROLL their eyes. But I think they’re responsible”
- -
*‘Don’t Look Up’ *is in cinemas from December 10 and on Netflix from
December 24. ‘Nightmare Alley’ is in cinemas from December 17 (US) and
January 21 (UK)
https://www.net-a-porter.com/en-sg/porter/article-275108dccf076ff6
- -
*DON'T LOOK UP Trailer 2 (2021)*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISt6u1_gZcE
/[ Changes to our planet ]/
*Major ocean current is accelerating alongside global warming*
ByAndrei Ionescu
Earth.com staff writer
A new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change has found
that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), the only ocean current
that circumnavigates the entire planet, is flowing faster due to climate
change. By using satellite measurements of sea-surface height, and data
collected by Argo, a global network of ocean floats, an international
team of researchers managed to detect a previously hidden trend in
Southern Ocean upper layer velocity.
The ACC surrounds Antarctica and separates cold water in the south from
warmer subtropical water in the north. Recently, this warm part of the
Southern Ocean is getting even warmer due to human activities, such as
the release of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Since this ocean
warming pattern can influence the climate all over the globe, it is
highly important to understand its dynamics.
- -
According to the researchers, it is very likely that the speed of the
current will increase even more as the Southern Ocean continues to warm
up due to human-induced climate change. Urgent measures need to be taken
in order to curb this process and thus protect a
https://www.earth.com/news/major-ocean-current-is-accelerating-alongside-global-warming/
- -
/[ research paper from nature climate change ]/
*Ocean warming and accelerating Southern Ocean zonal flow*
Jia-Rui Shi, Lynne D. Talley, Shang-Ping Xie, Qihua Peng & Wei Liu
Nature Climate Change - Published: 29 November 2021
Abstract
The Southern Ocean (>30° S) has taken up a large amount of
anthropogenic heat north of the Subantarctic Front (SAF) of the
Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC). Poor sampling before the 1990s
and decadal variability have heretofore masked the ocean’s dynamic
response to this warming. Here we use the lengthening satellite
altimetry and Argo float records to show robust acceleration of
zonally averaged Southern Ocean zonal flow at 48° S–58° S. This
acceleration is reproduced in a hierarchy of climate models,
including an ocean-eddy-resolving model. Anthropogenic ocean warming
is the dominant driver, as large (small) heat gain in the
downwelling (upwelling) regime north (south) of the SAF causes zonal
acceleration on the northern flank of the ACC and adjacent
subtropics due to increased baroclinicity; strengthened wind stress
is of secondary importance. In Drake Passage, little warming occurs
and the SAF velocity remains largely unchanged. Continued ocean
warming could further accelerate Southern Ocean zonal flow.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01212-5
/[ Yes, words make a difference.. ] /
*Calling climate change a ‘crisis’ doesn’t do what you think*
Getting people to act takes more than strong words, a new study says.
Kate Yoder - Nov 29. 2021
The way people talk about our overheating planet has been getting pretty
spicy. Bland, neutral-sounding phrases like global warming are out;
evocative words like crisis and emergency are in. Some activists have
argued that more urgent language will jolt people into realizing that
climate change is already here, prompting a speedier effort to cut
greenhouse gas emissions. As an opinion piece in the Guardian once put
it: “Our planet is in crisis. But until we call it a crisis, no one will
listen.”
New research, however, casts doubt on this premise. A study recently
published in the journal Climatic Change is among the first to examine
the effects of using climate crisis and climate emergency. It reported
that reading these phrases “did not have any effect on public
engagement,” measured in terms of whether the words had altered people’s
emotions, their support for climate policy, or their belief that action
could make a difference.
“We were pretty surprised that the terminology has such minimal
effects,” said Lauren Feldman, a professor of media studies at Rutgers
University and a coauthor of the study. Researchers found one instance
where the stronger phrasing backfired: News organizations deploying
climate emergency came across as slightly less trustworthy, perhaps
because it could sound alarmist...
- -
The phrase climate crisis started popping up everywhere — headlines, TED
talks, and in the U.S. Congress — and has recently strengthened its
foothold, making it into the Oxford English Dictionary last month. The
push behind climate emergency has taken a slightly different path, with
proponents demanding that governments declare a state of emergency on
climate. About 2,000 cities, town councils, and countries around the
world have already done so.
At least two previous studies raised questions that climate crisis might
not be working as intended. In 2013, researchers found that college
students reading a passage about the climate crisis reported the lowest
levels of concern about the overheating planet, whereas reading about
climate disruption elicited the most. In 2020, researchers comparing the
effects of the terms climate crisis and climate change on people in
Taiwan found that the crisis framing backfired among those with a
conservative outlook. Feldman’s research didn’t find any of these effects...
- -
The overall takeaway is that journalists and climate advocates might be
getting too hung up on specific words when the bigger picture is much
more important, Feldman said. What makes an article resonate with people
has more to do with its subject. News stories that emphasize taking
action tend to make people feel hopeful. Articles that highlight
solutions are also viewed as more credible, and people are less
resistant to them. Consider a recent piece from the New York Times that
explores how the Republican mayor of Carmel, Indiana, built 140
roundabouts in town, in part to cut down on the carbon emissions from
cars waiting at stoplights...
https://grist.org/language/calling-climate-change-a-crisis-or-emergency-stu/
- -
/[ see the source matter ]/
*Upping the ante? The effects of “emergency” and “crisis” framing in
climate change news*
Lauren Feldman & P. Sol Hart
Climatic Change volume 169, Article number: 10 (2021) Cite this article
- -
Abstract
News organizations increasingly use the terms “climate emergency”
and “climate crisis” to convey the urgency of climate change; yet,
little is known about how this terminology affects news audiences.
This study experimentally examined how using “climate emergency,”
“climate crisis,” or “climate change” in Twitter-based news stories
influences public engagement with climate change and news
perceptions, as well as whether the effects depend on the focus of
the news (i.e., on climate impacts, actions, or both impacts and
actions) and on participants’ political ideology. Results showed no
effect of terminology on climate change engagement; however,
“climate emergency” reduced perceived news credibility and
newsworthiness compared to “climate change.” Both climate engagement
and news perceptions were more consistently affected by the focus of
the stories: news about climate impacts increased fear, decreased
efficacy beliefs and hope, and reduced news credibility compared to
news about climate actions. No interactions with political ideology
were found.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03219-5
/[ Book promotion "Dark Persuasion" ] /
*Dark Persuasion - The History of Brainwashing from Pavlov to Social Media*
Oct 30, 2021
University of California Television (UCTV)
Joel Dimsdale discusses his latest book “Dark Persuasion: A History of
Brainwashing from Pavlov to Social Media,” which traces the evolution of
brainwashing from its beginnings in torture and religious conversion
into the age of neuroscience and social media. Dimsdale is distinguished
professor emeritus in the Department of Psychiatry at UC San Diego.
[11/2021] [Show ID: 37324]
00:00 - Start
01:46 - Main Presentation
47:48 - Q&A
Please Note: Knowledge about health and medicine is constantly evolving.
This information may become out of date...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWl8FXhdEio
- -
/[ buy the book ]/
*Dark Persuasion: A History of Brainwashing from Pavlov to Social Media
Hardcover – August 10, 2021*
by Joel E. Dimsdale (Author)
- -
A "highly readable and compelling" account (Science) of brainwashing’s
pervasive role in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries
“Riveting. . . . Dimsdale . . . shows how the art of dark persuasion a
generation ago led almost inevitably to today’s misinformation,
cyberbullying and cultlike behavior on the Internet.”—Dina
Temple-Raston, Washington Post
This gripping book traces the evolution of brainwashing from its
beginnings in torture and religious conversion into the age of
neuroscience and social media. When Pavlov introduced scientific
approaches, his research was enthusiastically supported by Lenin and
Stalin, setting the stage for major breakthroughs in tools for social,
political, and religious control.
Tracing these developments through many of the past century’s major
conflagrations, Dimsdale narrates how when World War II erupted,
governments secretly raced to develop drugs for interrogation.
Brainwashing returned to the spotlight during the Cold War in the hands
of the North Koreans and Chinese. In response, a huge Manhattan Project
of the Mind was established to study memory obliteration, indoctrination
during sleep, and hallucinogens. Cults used the techniques as well.
Nobel laureates, university academics, intelligence operatives,
criminals, and clerics all populate this shattering and dark story—one
that hasn’t yet ended.
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Persuasion-History-Brainwashing-Pavlov/dp/0300247176/ref=sr_1_1
/[ serious briefing from a year ago.... learn the physics of heating ] /
*How do clouds affect global warming?*
Jan 22, 2021
UT Physics Colloquium
*How do clouds affect global warming?*
Jennifer Kay, University of Colorado at Boulder
Physics Colloquium 2021-01-21
Understanding the influence of clouds on global warming remains an
important unsolved research problem. Cloud feedbacks are often found to
be the largest uncertainty in global warming projections from climate
models. This talk presents an overview of this topic, with a focus on
recent observations, theory, and modeling results. After a general
introduction, experiments that disable cloud radiative feedbacks or
“lock the clouds” within a state‐of‐the‐art and well‐documented climate
model will be presented. Through comparison of idealized greenhouse
warming experiments with and without cloud locking, the sign and
magnitude cloud feedbacks can be quantified. Global cloud feedbacks
increase both global and Arctic warming by around 25%. In contrast,
disabling Arctic cloud feedbacks has a negligible influence on both
Arctic and global surface warming. Do observations and theory support a
positive global cloud feedback and a weak Arctic cloud feedback? What
are the implications especially for greater-than-global Arctic warming?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1VBCt8GLc
/[ Briefing about the Arctic -- from 2020 ]/
*Webinar: Arctic Extremes - The Frontlines of Global Warming*
May 11, 2020
Woodwell Climate Research Center
Presented by Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC)'s Rachael Treharne,
Tatiana Shestakova and Sue Natali. Introductory remarks by Heather
Goldstone, WHRC's Chief Communications Officer.
The Arctic is warming faster than almost anywhere else on Earth and
often the changes with the biggest impact are not linear – they are
abrupt, acute shifts; extreme events. WHRC scientists Rachael Treharne,
Tatiana Shestakova, and Sue Natali will share their experiences of
tracking and studying extreme events in a rapidly changing Arctic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6oobe-7aVU&t=7s
/[ yes, yes it is... text clips from a long essay -- Mother Jones ]/
Keith Negley
*Is Sucking Carbon Out of the Air the Solution to Our Climate Crisis?*
Or just another Big Oil boondoggle?
CLIVE THOMPSON - - NOV+DEC 2021 ISSUE
- -
A few scientists had theorized that one might do this using a new
process they dubbed Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Sequestration (or
Storage). You could sow endless cycles of fast-growing trees or crops,
burn that biomass to generate electricity, capture the resulting CO2
from your plant’s smokestack, and inject it deep into the ground
(ideally amid porous rock like basalt, which has oodles of tiny crevices
that CO2 molecules can populate). In theory, if you replaced thousands
of fossil fuel plants with BECCS plants, you could generate lots of
electricity and come out net negative because your biomass had already,
via photosynthesis, sucked a lot of carbon out of the air—and now that
carbon is buried. Sure enough, when scientists incorporated BECCS into
their models, it helped balance the books. They could produce scenarios
with lots and lots of power plants that would begin to walk humanity
back from the climatic abyss....
- -
If and when we manage to pull it off, removing mass quantities of carbon
will require an enormous number of DAC machines. To hit the IPCC’s goal
of 10 billion tons per year by midcentury, according to a recent study
in Science, you’d need 30,000 plants the size of Carbon Engineering’s
Texas facility. With the smaller Climeworks or Global Thermostat units,
you’d need 30 million, and with Lackner’s trees, probably a lot more.
Building carbon extractors on such a scale sounds almost delusional. But
Lackner counters that it’s really not, when you consider other human
endeavors. After all, he points out, “We are building nearly 100 million
cars and trucks a year.”...
- -
And finally, we have the energy paradox. The machines needed to suck up
10 billion tons of CO2 each year would consume more than half the
world’s current energy supply, according to a 2019 study in Nature.
Using DAC to build a closed-loop cycle with synthetic fuels would
require even more energy, and a huge expansion of solar and wind capacity.
So why, environmentalists often wonder, would we bother to expend all of
that clean energy on DAC? Instead, why not just push hard to electrify
our economies and get rid of as many oil-burning engines as we can, as
fast as we can? The sooner we do so, the less DAC we’ll need in the long
run, says Lindsay Meiman, a communications specialist with the
environmental group 350.org. “We have those solutions—we have them,” she
says. “It’s about the political will and investment and the priority.”
The government should prioritize investments in “free public transit to
create millions of jobs that will dismantle these current fossil fuel
projects.”
“Once you start doing the numbers, you realize that it makes much more
sense to just eliminate most of your emissions,” says David Morrow,
research director at American University’s Institute for Carbon Removal
Law and Policy.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the way DAC is now being rolled out and
subsidized, critics say, is that it lets fossil fuel interests go on
with business as usual. As Muffett sees it, the petroleum giants regard
partnerships with companies like Global Thermostat and Carbon
Engineering as a survival ploy. Polluters spent the past few decades
claiming they could capture CO2 from smokestacks to make coal- and
gas-powered electricity emission-free, but they never did. Now they’re
claiming we can extract carbon from the sky. For fossil fuel firms, “any
technology that says, ‘Hey, we don’t have to stop emitting this stuff—we
can just find a way to make it disappear,’ is highly desirable,” Muffett
says.
*7. A PROGRESSIVE CASE FOR CARBON-SUCKING*
Despite their deep skepticism, even many environmentalists repulsed by
the fossil fuel industry have a nagging question in the back of their
heads: What if carbon sequestration is necessary? What if humankind
can’t—or won’t—move fast enough on renewables, and discovers later this
century that the IPCC was right: We simply have to get rid of that
excess carbon? Greenpeace’s Noël is hotly opposed to Big Oil and Gas.
“We need to have a political, financial, and cultural full-court press
to isolate the fossil fuel industry in all corners of life,” he
practically shouted at me over the phone. “In policy circles they should
not be allowed at the table. They should not be allowed to advertise.
They shouldn’t be invited to any serious meeting.” He thinks they’re
using DAC as a ruse: “The technology has been captured, manipulated,
utilized, thrown into a PR machine.”
Yet still—still—Noël admits it’s probably a good idea for governments to
fund scientists and engineers to work on DAC technologies. He’d like us
to have the option in pocket, in case it’s ever needed. “I have a
9-month-old daughter and we’re at 415 parts per million” of CO2, he
says. Given the serious effects we’re already seeing from climate
change, Noël is deeply worried about what it’ll look like decades from
now if we fail to hit the brakes on emissions. He’s fine with someone
doing the work as long as it’s “fully decoupled from the fossil fuel
industry.” Other environmentalists offered the same cautious approval.
Morrow told me carbon-sucking should be our last resort, to be used
sparingly only after we’ve shifted as much of the economy as possible
toward renewables: “The role that DAC can play is an important but
limited one, where we’re cleaning up stuff that we don’t have a good way
to clean up otherwise, or drawing down legacy carbon.”
Lastly, the progressive argument insists that DAC isn’t our first tool
of choice. Before devoting major public funds to incentivize it, we
should first throw our subsidies at renewables. As for sucking up
carbon, we’d want to pursue as many low-tech, nature-based techniques as
possible. Just how far can we push reforestation? Ocean
sequestration—such as treating beaches with chemicals that compel sand
to suck up CO2 or growing plankton that metabolizes it—could be explored
more aggressively. And though BECCS might be a boondoggle, farms do
produce a lot of biowaste—about 104 million tons a year—that can be used
for sequestration.
But we still might need those DAC machines. When I first spoke with
Lackner, he argued that humanity had already blown far past the ideal
time to step away from oil and gas. “In 1980, we could have said, ‘Let’s
stop!’ And instead we procrastinated,” he told me. We’ll be lucky if his
technology works as well as he hopes. When I visited his lab in the
summer, it had the atmosphere of all the tech startups I’ve ever
visited: a lot of excitement, but no guarantees. DAC is the classic
industrial Wild West tale—nobody has any idea who’ll win or whether
winning is even possible.
Yet Lackner is hopeful, in his dry and chill fashion. He took me outside
to a gravelly construction area where, later this year, his team will
install the first prototype of his next-generation carbon-sucking tree.
A cherry picker stood in the middle of the ground. Lackner’s latest tree
consists of a 30-foot stack of sorbent disks. It may not look like much,
he said, but neither did windmills in the ’80s and ’90s, and look how
powerful they are today. “If we can pull wind energy out of the air,” he
said, “we can pull CO2 out.”
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/10/sucking-carbon-engineering-global-thermostat-co2-direct-air-capture-climeworks-solution-climate-crisis-big-oil-boondoggle-ipcc/
/[ high geek-factor science overview -- lots of math -- 47 min
video why we are over-heating ]
/*Global warming is larger in the latest climate models than in their
predecessors. Do we trust them?*
Jan 28, 2021
UT Physics Colloquium
Global warming is larger in the latest climate models than in their
predecessors. Do we trust them?
Mark Zelinka, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Physics Colloquium 2021-01-28
How much will Earth warm in response to increased concentrations of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Answering this question is a key
goal of climate science, given its importance for society. CO2
quadrupling experiments routinely conducted by global climate modeling
centers around the world yield a wide range of climate sensitivities to
carbon dioxide. In this talk, I will discuss why climate sensitivities
in the latest state-of-the-art models are substantially larger than in
their predecessors. The primary culprit is clouds: Planetary warming
causes low-level clouds to become less extensive and less reflective,
inducing further warming – an amplifying feedback that has strengthened
in the latest models. This stronger positive cloud feedback arises due
to changes in model physics and may be related to improved
representation of cloud ice and liquid water content. Given the
prominence of low cloud feedback in driving uncertainty in climate
sensitivity, I will then discuss our efforts to constrain the global
marine low cloud feedback using satellite observations of how low cloud
properties respond to meteorology. This work indicates that the observed
sensitivity of low clouds to their environmental controls is
incompatible with very high or very low values of climate sensitivity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8
/[ society as a complex system -- and carbon capitalism is a structural
injustice - ] /
*London Annual Lecture 21 - Systemic, Structural, and Institutional
Injustice: What’s the difference?*
RoyIntPhilosophy
The Royal Institute of Philosophy - London Annual Lecture 2021
Sally Haslanger -- November 29, 2021
'Systemic, Structural, and Institutional Injustice: What’s the difference?
The terms 'systemic injustice' and 'structural injustice' are often used
interchangeably and are often equated with 'institutional injustice.'
But in order to understand these different forms of injustice, we should
have a clear idea of what they are and how to distinguish them. Using
racism as a paradigm case, this talk will sketch an account of society
as a complex system and show how relations that make up the structures
are constituted by social practices. This will help us locate some of
the leverage points for social change.
Sally Haslanger is Ford Professor of Philosophy and Women’s and Gender
Studies at MIT. She has published in metaphysics, epistemology,
feminist theory, and critical race theory. Her work links issues of
social justice with contemporary work in epistemology, metaphysics,
philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind. Haslanger is deeply
committed to promoting diversity in philosophy and beyond. She was the
founder and convener of the Women in Philosophy Task Force, and
co-founded PIKSI-Boston, a summer philosophy institute for
undergraduates from under-represented groups. In 2013-4, she was the
President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical
Association, and in 2015, she was elected to the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpQSxBCN40
[The news archive - looking back]
*On this day in the history of global warming November 30, 1999*
November 30, 1999: Exxon and Mobil complete their merger.
http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/30/deals/exxonmobil/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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. This is a hobby production curated by Richard Pauli
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain 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/20211130/80316ab4/attachment.htm>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list