[✔️] September 10, 2021 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

Fri Sep 10 08:52:54 EDT 2021

/*September 10, 2021*/

[Clips from the Guardian - while not a scientist, Monbiot is very well 
informed and strongly opinionated]
*Earth’s tipping points could be closer than we think. Our current plans 
won’t work*
George Monbiot -- 9 Sep 2021
If there’s one thing we know about climate breakdown, it’s that it will 
not be linear, smooth or gradual. Just as one continental plate might 
push beneath another in sudden fits and starts, causing periodic 
earthquakes and tsunamis, our atmospheric systems will absorb the stress 
for a while, then suddenly shift. Yet, everywhere, the programmes 
designed to avert it are linear, smooth and gradual.

Current plans to avoid catastrophe would work in a simple system like a 
washbasin, in which you can close the tap until the inflow is less than 
the outflow. But they are less likely to work in complex systems, such 
as the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere. Complex systems seek 
equilibrium. When they are pushed too far out of one equilibrium state, 
they can flip suddenly into another. A common property of complex 
systems is that it’s much easier to push them past a tipping point than 
to push them back. Once a transition has happened, it cannot 
realistically be reversed...
- -
Climate policies commit us to a calamitous 2.9C of global heating, but 
catastrophic changes can occur at even 1.5C or 2C
A common property of complex systems is that it’s much easier to push 
them past a tipping point than to push them back. Once a transition has 
happened, it cannot realistically be reversed...
- -
The old assumption that the Earth’s tipping points are a long way off is 
beginning to look unsafe. A recent paper warns that the Atlantic 
meridional overturning circulation – the system that distributes heat 
around the world and drives the Gulf Stream – may now be “close to a 
critical transition”. This circulation has flipped between “on” and 
“off” states several times in prehistory, plunging northern Europe and 
eastern North America into unbearable cold, heating the tropics, 
disrupting monsoons.

Other systems could also be approaching their thresholds: the West and 
East Antarctic ice sheets, the Amazon rainforest, and the Arctic tundra 
and boreal forests, which are rapidly losing the carbon they store, 
driving a spiral of further heating. Earth systems don’t stay in their 
boxes. If one flips into a different state, it could trigger the 
flipping of others. Sudden changes of state might be possible with just 
1.5C or 2C of global heating.

A common sign that complex systems are approaching tipping points is 
rising volatility: they start to flicker. The extreme weather in 2021 – 
the heat domes, droughts, fires, floods and cyclones – is, frankly, 
terrifying. If Earth systems tip as a result of global heating, there 
will be little difference between taking inadequate action and taking no 
action at all. A miss is as good as a mile.
- -
Even when all the promised technofixes and offsets are counted, current 
policies commit us to a calamitous 2.9C of global heating. To risk 
irreversible change by proceeding at such a leisurely pace, to rely on 
undelivered technologies and nonexistent capacities: this is a formula 
for catastrophe.

If Earth systems cross critical thresholds, everything we did and 
everything we were – the learning, the wisdom, the stories, the art, the 
politics, the love, the hate, the anger and the hope – will be reduced 
to stratigraphy. It’s not a smooth and linear transition we need. It’s a 
crash course.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/09/earths-tipping-points-closer-current-climate-plans-wont-work-global-heating

[from very recent reports from NYT]
*Extreme Weather and Climate Updates*
Sept. 9, 2021
This summer was hotter than the Dust Bowl summer, NOAA says.
Five states — California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Utah — reported 
their warmest summers on record, the agency said.

    -- Nearly all power has been restored in New Orleans, where at least
    10 people died of excess heat after Ida.
    -- Democrats Want a ‘Climate Corps.’ They Just Can’t Agree How to
    Create It.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/09/us/climate-change

[Nolke is a creative using light humor in sarcastic dialogs with herself 
- this is her  first on global warming]
*Fighting Climate Change (funny!)*
Sep 9, 2021
Julie Nolke
We are dead set on a greener future, let us show you how...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZecqlWBUvU

[VICE News - often cynical commentary seems spot on - from a podcast]
*Earth’s On Fire and We’re Arguing About Cheeseburgers, So That’s Great 
| The Couch Report*
Jul 26, 2021
VICE News
Greg Walters enters the climate fray which now has... fire tornados.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCWM-y7ew7g

[Notice the power of words in "Beliefs & Attitudes and Messaging"]
CLIMATE NOTE · Dec 1, 2020
*Should it be called “natural gas” or “methane”?*
- -
How much does natural gas benefit from its name, which includes the word 
“natural”? To answer this question, we conducted an experiment to 
investigate the public’s emotions and associations regarding the terms 
“natural gas” and “methane.” We randomly assigned respondents to one of 
four conditions in which each respondent was asked to rate their 
positive and negative feelings (affect) about one of the following four 
terms: “natural gas,” “natural methane gas,” “methane,” or “methane gas.”

We found that the term “natural gas” evokes much more positive feelings 
than do any of the three methane terms. Conversely, the terms “methane” 
and “methane gas” evoke much more negative feelings than does “natural 
gas.” ...
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/should-it-be-called-natural-gas-or-methane/

[Yale academic studies on disinformation and opinion manipulation]
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE · Sep 9, 2021
*Different names for “natural gas” influence public perception of it*
By Karine Lacroix, Matthew Goldberg, Abel Gustafson, Seth Rosenthal and 
Anthony Leiserowitz
Recently, we released results from an experiment in which we 
investigated how Republicans and Democrats respond to the terms “natural 
gas,” “natural methane gas,” “methane,” and “methane gas.” We found that 
both Democrats and Republicans had the most positive feelings about 
“natural gas” and the most negative feelings about “methane” and 
“methane gas.”

However, some scientists and advocates have used two other terms for 
natural gas: “fossil gas” and “fracked gas.” So we extended our original 
experiment to investigate the effects of these terms as well.

Unlike our first experiment (which found similar response patterns among 
Democrats and Republicans) our new study found that the two parties have 
widely divergent responses about “fossil gas” and “fracked gas.” 
Importantly, Republicans had more positive feelings about “fossil gas” 
and “fracked gas” than they did about “methane” or “methane gas.”

By contrast, Democrats had more negative feelings about “fossil gas” and 
“fracked gas” than “methane” or “methane gas.” In other words, these two 
terms (“fossil gas” and “fracked gas”) have polarizing, opposite 
effects. They are perceived slightly more negatively by Democrats than 
other terms, but are actually perceived as positive terms by Republicans.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/note_figure1-768x602.png
Next, following the design of our first experiment, we asked 
respondents: “When you think of [fossil gas / fracked gas], what is the 
first [then second, then third] word or phrase that comes to your mind?” 
Each participant could provide up to three such associations.

As with the positive and negative feeling ratings above, this measure of 
associations also finds that the terms “fossil gas” and “fracked gas” 
are more politically polarized than “natural gas” and “methane gas” as 
described in our first study.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/fossil_figure2-1-1024x678.png
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/fracked_figure3-1-1024x706.png
Although Democrats most often think of pollution when they see the words 
“fossil gas” and “fracked gas,” Republicans most often think of gas, 
energy, and the word natural.

Taken together, the findings from the two experiments indicate that both 
Democrats and Republicans have more positive feelings towards “natural 
gas” than “methane” or “methane gas.” However, the terms “fossil gas” 
and “fracked gas” produced larger partisan differences than any of the 
other terms we tested. Democrats felt slightly more negative, while 
Republicans felt much more positive about these two terms compared to 
the methane-related terms.

Overall, we find that the terms “methane” and “methane gas” are 
perceived as bad by both Democrats and Republicans. By contrast, the 
terms “fossil gas” and “fracked gas” have contradictory effects among 
Democrats (who perceive them as bad) and Republicans (who perceive them 
as good).

This line of research helps unpack the influence of the “terms of 
debate” used in public and political discourse. And importantly, it 
finds that the terms used sometimes have large differences in 
interpretation and meaning, both overall and among particular subgroups.

Strategically, campaigners seeking to reduce American reliance on this 
fossil fuel may find some additional value in using the terms “fossil 
gas” and “fracked gas” among Democrats, as Democrats (and perhaps 
advocates themselves) perceive these terms slightly more negatively than 
all the other names for this fossil fuel. However, using these same 
terms may actually be counterproductive with Republicans, who currently 
interpret these terms opposite to the way advocates intend.

The peer-reviewed article is available here to those with a subscription 
to the Journal of Environmental Psychology. If you would like to request 
a copy, please send an email to climatechange at yale.edu with the subject 
line: Request Natural Gas Paper.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/testing-other-names-for-natural-gas/

[ dire video conjectures 20 min version]
*Short Worst-case Climate Scenario*
Sep 9, 2021
Peter Carter
Climate change indicators are tracking the worst-case scenario. A short 
version (half as long) as the recent full length study that was 
explained in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEWXjagRwAk

[Language]
*Enough With The Climate Jargon: Scientists Aim For Clearer Messages On 
Global Warming*
September 8, 20215
Rebecca Hersher at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C.,

A new study finds that common climate change terms can be confusing to 
the public. That includes phrases that describe the transition from 
fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy. Here, wind turbines operate 
near a coal-fired power plant in Germany.
Ina Fassbender /AFP via Getty Images
Here's a sentence that's basically unintelligible to most people: Humans 
must mitigate global warming by pursuing an unprecedented transition to 
a carbon neutral economy.

A recent study found that some of the most common terms in climate 
science are confusing to the general public. The study tested words that 
are frequently used in international climate reports, and it concluded 
that the most confusing terms were "mitigation," "carbon neutral" and 
"unprecedented transition."

"I think the main message is to avoid jargon," says Wändi Bruine de 
Bruin, a behavioral scientist at the University of Southern California 
and the lead author of the study. "That includes words that may seem 
like everyone should understand them."

For example, participants in the study mixed up the word "mitigation," 
which commonly refers to efforts that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 
with the word "mediation," which is a way to resolve disputes. And even 
simple terms such as "carbon" can be misleading, the study found. 
Sometimes, carbon is shorthand for carbon dioxide. Other times, it's 
used to refer to multiple greenhouse gases.

Article continues after sponsor message

"As experts in a particular field, we may not realize which of the words 
that we're using are jargon," says Bruine de Bruin.

The study is the latest indication that scientists need to do a better 
job communicating about global warming, especially when the intended 
audience is the general public.

Clear climate communication gets more important every day because 
climate change is affecting every part of life on Earth. Nurses, 
doctors, farmers, teachers, engineers and business executives need 
reliable, accessible information about how global warming is affecting 
their patients, crops, students, buildings and businesses.

And extreme weather this summer — from floods to fires, hurricanes to 
droughts — underscores the urgency of clear climate communication.

"I think more and more people are getting concerned because of the 
extreme weather events that we're seeing around us," says Bruine de 
Bruin. "I hope that this study is useful to climate scientists, but also 
to journalists and anybody who communicates about climate science."

Better communication is a mandate for the team of scientists currently 
working on the next National Climate Assessment, which is the most 
comprehensive, public-facing climate change report for the U.S. The 
fifth edition of the assessment comes out in late 2023.

"You shouldn't need an advanced degree or a decoder ring to figure out a 
National Climate Assessment," says Allison Crimmins, the director of the 
assessment.

Crimmins says one of her top priorities is to make the information in 
the next U.S. report clear to the general public. Climate scientists and 
people who communicate about climate science have a responsibility to 
think about the terminology they use. "While the science on climate 
change has advanced, so has the science of climate communication, 
especially how we talk about risk," she says.

Crimmins says one way to make the information clearer is to present it 
in many different ways. For example, a chapter on drought could include 
a dense, technical piece of writing with charts and graphs. That section 
would be intended for scientists and engineers. But the same information 
could be presented as a video explaining how drought affects agriculture 
in different parts of the U.S., and a social media post with an even 
more condensed version of how climate change is affecting drought.

The United Nations has also tried to make its climate change reports 
more accessible.

The most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change was more than 3,900 pages long and highly technical, but it also 
included a two-page summary that stated the main points in simple 
language, such as, "It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed 
the atmosphere, ocean and land."

But even the simple summary is rife with words that can be confusing. 
For example, one of the so-called headline statements from the IPCC 
report is, "With further global warming, every region is projected to 
increasingly experience concurrent and multiple changes in climatic 
impact-drivers." Basically, the climate will keep changing everywhere as 
Earth gets hotter.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/08/1033362163/enough-with-the-climate-jargon-scientists-aim-for-clearer-messages-on-global-war

[The news archive - looking back - six years ago]
*On this day in the history of global warming September 10, 2015*
The New York Times reports on severe wildfires in California.
The air and soot are effectively trapped in a geographic bowl for much 
of the summer, and the lack of wind and rain has made it impossible for 
things to clear out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/fires-in-west-leave-residents-gasping-on-the-soot-left-behind.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. 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/20210910/06d0b775/attachment.htm>