[✔️] March 27, 2022 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[👀 Richard Pauli]

/*March 27, 2022*/


/[ All climate models are imperfect, but some are useful.  We will 
always need climate models. ]/
*The Future of Climate Modeling?*
26 MAR 2022 -- BY GAVIN
There was an interesting workshop last week focused on the Future of 
Climate Modelling. It was run by the World Climate Research Program 
(WCRP) Core Project on Earth System Modelling and Observations (ESMO) 
which is part of a bewildering alphabet soup of various advisory 
committees that exist for mostly unclear historical reasons. This one 
actually does something useful – namely it helps organize the CMIP 
activities that many modeling groups contribute to (which inform the 
assessment reports like IPCC and various national Climate Assessments). 
They had a wide variety of people and perspectives to discuss the 
changing landscape of climate modeling and what people want from these 
models. You won’t agree with everything, but it was informative.

The workshop was in four quite digestible chunks which are all on Youtube

    Day 1 - https://youtu.be/QEex28orbpM
    Day 2 - https://youtu.be/j1BHklM6CaM
    Day 3 - https://youtu.be/jOuCS3nkqvg
    Day 4 - https://youtu.be/ZowWN22VmU8 ...

The main themes were familiar – how should we prioritize new activities 
(at the community level) given limited resources? Higher resolution? 
More complexity? More initial condition ensembles? More forcing 
ensembles? More perturbed parameter ensembles? More machine learning? 
Better post-processing? All of the above in little bits? In reality, 
these decisions are taken at the model group or national or agency 
funding manager level, and not by international committees, but the 
facilitating role the committees have can increase the utility of the 
individual group contributions and guide some choices. The tensions 
between these different directions has existed for decades, but some of 
the new elements (the role of AI/ML, the increased spread of ECS in 
CMIP6, the demonstrated utility of Large Ensembles etc.) add some 
wrinkles to the discussion.

One new theme which hasn’t come up much before at this level, is the 
carbon footprint of these activities – at the supercomputer centers, but 
also the in-person workshop and international meetings that until 
recently were commonplace. This was a virtual international meeting with 
active participation from Asia, Australasia, Europe, and the Americas 
which a few years ago would certainly have been in-person, with a much 
smaller attendance and a much higher cost. But whether this scales to 
the bigger meetings and how we can provide the important 
mentoring/socializing/community building/career aspects of the previous 
practice is as yet unclear.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/03/the-future-of-climate-modeling/
/[ Dr Gavin Schmidt is a top NASA scientist and main contributor to  the 
website RealClimate.org which tries to provide context and background on 
climate science issues  ]/



/[ written opinion and videos below discuss the challenge the IPCC must 
face -- It must author a consensus document of one voice that is 
actually composed by one hundred eighty (mostly) men.  Of course it will 
be milquetoast.  It's like we are children and our scout leadership is 
from 180 national representatives - some of whom are good, and some who 
are horrible criminals - but all their words must be combined into an 
agreed statement delivered as a chorus of one voice -- Their words come 
after months and years of negotiations about how to address the 
heatwaves, fires, floods, storms and sea level rise of global warming.  
Our world is changing so radically fast, that for whatever the IPCC 
writes, just by their process they are months behind -- even years 
behind the unfolding reality. The IPCC may declare itself a trusted 
science oracle, but they are worthless in commanding change.   Maybe the 
IPCC has served out its usefulness. ]/

MARCH 25, 2022
*The Truth About IPCC Reports*
BY ROBERT HUNZIKER
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in many respects, 
is a Delphic institution whose reports are a function of political 
discretion as it provides justification for nation/state policies that 
are seldom fulfilled, e.g., only a handful of the 193 signatory nations 
to Paris ’15 have met commitments. This scandalous outright failure at a 
dicey time for the climate system only serves to hasten loss of 
stability and integrity of the planet’s most important ecosystems.

That provocative depiction is examined in a recent Nick Breeze 
ClimateGenn podcast interview: Existential Risk Management with David 
Spratt, research director of the Breakthrough National Centre for 
Climate Restoration in Melbourne. Dr. Spratt is highly regarded for 
solid research, which is evidenced throughout his refreshingly 
straightforward interview.

Spratt’s interview tackles: (1) failings of the IPCC, (2) tipping 
points, and (3) a nearly out of control global warming challenge that’s 
not realistically understood, even as wobbly ecosystems start to falter.

The truth is the IPCC has been politicized to such an extent that its 
reports unintentionally confuse public opinion whilst misdirecting 
public policy issues for mitigation. At the center of the issue the IPCC 
does not expose the full extent of existential risk, which happens to be 
such an unthinkable event so hard to accept that nobody believes it will 
ever really truly happen, more on this later.

During the interview a tipping point is discussed in the context of 
reduction of Arctic summer sea ice to 3/4ths of its volume, as the 
Arctic’s highly reflective ice melts into a dark background of sea water 
that easily absorbs almost all of the incoming solar radiation, in turn, 
absorbing warmth that would otherwise be 80%-90% reflected back to outer 
space via the long-standing albedo effect of ice. In turn, a warming 
Arctic causes excessive warmth to hit Greenland, which, according to Dr. 
Jason Box (professor in glaciology at the Geological Survey of Denmark 
and Greenland) is already “past the point of system stability,” meaning 
past a tipping point of no return. Recently Box publicly warned of 
abrupt climate change forthcoming. Meanwhile, Greenland’s melt releases 
cold water into the Atlantic, in turn, slowing down the Atlantic Gulf 
Stream, and, as follows, weakens Atlantic circulation that, in turn, 
negatively impacts precipitation in the eastern Amazon.

Like a series of dominoes falling one onto another, one initial event 
(a) loss of Arctic sea ice brings (b) warmer Arctic waters (c) cascading 
into more Greenland melt-off, causing (d) slower Atlantic circulation, 
triggering (e) loss of precipitation for the eastern Amazon. The net 
result because of one non-linear event, i.e., loss of Artic sea ice 
triggers four additional major events. Ipso facto, those five events 
reinforce each other for who knows how long?

According to Spratt: “So, we see that a change in one system, i.e., 
Arctic ice volume echoes or has domino effects through other systems,” 
which triggers a tipping point that, in fact, is already at a seminal stage.

Regarding the IPCC’s approach to risk, first it is important to 
emphasize the fact that big risks must be the key to successful climate 
change analysis. By definition, big risks are at the top end of a range 
of possibilities. But, the IPCC does not see risks that way. Their view 
is more generalized and this has become normalized over the past 20 
years, e.g., we have a 50% chance of not exceeding 2°C with our current 
carbon budget. According to Spratt: That is catastrophically wrong. That 
type of risk assessment has been normalized now for 20 years in 
policy-making, and “it is horribly wrong.”

When risks are existential, and they clearly are in this particular 
instance, everybody knows if it gets to the range of 3C to 4C 
pre-industrial (and 60% of scientists say we’re already headed for 3C 
plus) “we’ll destroy human civilization.”

Therefore, when risks are existential, you can’t look at an on-average 
analysis, rather, you must look at the worst possible outcome as your 
primary calculation. It’s the only way to approach an existential risk.

In that regard and interestingly enough the foreword of the IPCC report 
of a few years ago actually said: “Critical instances calculating 
probabilities don’t matter. What matters is the high-end possibility.”

But nowadays a figure such as “50% probability introduces a fundamental 
problem with the assessment process. More realistically, the proper way 
to look at existential risks is by stating x-amount of additional carbon 
has a 50% chance of reaching 2C but also has a 10% chance of 4C or in 
other words, a 50% chance of staying below 2C is also a 10% chance of 
reaching 4C. Would you take an elevator ride with a 10% chance of the 
cable breaking at the 75th floor?

When it comes to existential risks, the expectation should be: “Why 
should we accept risks with the climate system that we would not accept 
with our own lives?” They are really one in the same.

Thus, the core of existential risk management must focus on the 
high-end, not middling ranges of probability. The focus must be, and 
this is an absolute: “What is the worst that can happen, and what do we 
have to do to prevent it?”

That assumption is not part of the latest IPCC report. When it comes to 
non-linear responses of cascades, the IPCC says: “There is no evidence 
of such non-linear responses at the global scaling climate projections 
for the next century. But, according to Spratt: “This is just wrong.”

After all, “everybody knows, for example, that emissions from permafrost 
are non-trivial at the moment. We know that warming in the last decade 
has been higher than in previous decades and the system is about to warm 
at an accelerating rate as major systems are already changing state. And 
the IPCC says there is no evidence of moving into non-linear climate 
change. This is absurd!” (Spratt)

Ipso facto, because of a badly misjudged bias, IPCC models can’t deal 
with non-linear processes. As a result, they’re missing the big picture 
by a country mile. And, mitigation policies, for what that’s worth, are 
inadequate.

Yet, according to Dr. Spratt: “The paleoclimate record tells us that, in 
the long run, each one-degree of warming brings 10-20 meters (32- 66 
feet) of sea level rise. Frankly, that would be a legitimate statement 
for the IPCC, but they do not deal with non-linear events.”

All of which leads to inadvertent problems for policy makers because 
people judge the IPCC report as pure science. “It is not. The IPCC is a 
political body. Diplomats of 190 governments run the IPCC. They appoint 
the lead authors for reports. The IPCC is the intersection of policy and 
politics.” (Spratt)

Meanwhile, as if misdirection by the IPCC is not enough of a problem, 
change is happening so much faster than forecasts. For example, early 
IPCC reports said Antarctica would be stable for a thousand years. But, 
back in 2007, Richard Alley (Penn State) said it’s already melting 100 
years ahead of schedule.

Of special concern in the near future, when the Arctic goes Full Monty, 
a 100% ice-free summer, “it will drive changes that will be 
unstoppable.” This existential risk is already capriciously inconstant 
across the entire northern horizon.

Furthermore, it’s already apparent to many scientists that we’ll be at 
1.5C a decade from now, regardless of emissions over the next 10 years. 
In fact 1.5C around 2030 looks to be locked-in in part because of the 
aerosol dilemma. If so, we’re only a decade away from Hot House Earth 
becoming reality. Thenceforth, the climate system will accelerate much 
faster than ever before.

Fourteen years ago Spratt published a book Climate Code Red, which 
codified the idea of a climate emergency by conceptually stating that 
the climate problem could not be solved “with business as usual.” 
(Footnote: It’s still business as usual, but bigger)

A review of the book states: Climate Code Red: The Case for Emergency 
Action is a 2008 book which presents scientific evidence that the global 
warming crisis is worse than official reports and national governments 
have so far indicated.

Based upon this current interview, Spratt seems to indicate that it is 
even worse (actually bigger) today than it was in 2008.

To avert what looks to be an inevitable existential event requires an 
enormous commitment of resources comparable to a wartime economy with 
single-minded focus on climate policy, and it also requires a major 
change in the way society works. Those are awfully big requests, so one 
has to wonder what’s truly feasible.

As things now stand current mitigation stems from the IPCC’s embedded 
idea that there can be “incremental non-destructive change as a 
solution… This will not work.” (Spratt)

The harsh truth is global emissions are continuing to go up, as all of 
the decarbonization efforts like wind, solar, electric cars, and energy 
efficiency only serve to produce “more energy for growth.” For example, 
if the global economy grows 2% per year and 2% of the energy system 
converts to renewables, then the same amount of fossil fuel energy is 
used every year. That is a very rough facsimile of what has been 
happening. Fossil fuel use as a percentage of all energy is essentially 
the same today as 50 years ago.

Moreover, “there is no way that a system with ‘hands-off’ government, 
other than a few token regulations, and ‘the free market deciding the 
outcome’ is going to work.” In fact, the evidence is already telling us 
it does not work. Not even close.

A true fixit requires overwhelmingly powerful political leadership. In 
that regard, according to Spratt: “What I really fear and my experience 
is that those in the elite, whether it’s in business or in politics, 
simply, I think, do not understand the problem as it really exists.”

There’s a profound ignorance because of the IPCC telling a story that 
incrementalism is a successful approach when it’s clearly not.

A collateral problem is a large segment of the professional climate 
advocacy NGO community has been “swallowed by the whale,” meaning they 
buy into the lame Conference of the Parties “COP” meetings and swallow 
the corporate-origin net zero nonsense by 2050, over and over again, 
umm, but it’s too little too late, horribly misdirected. Whereas, 
according to several scientists, 2030 is the deadly deadline, not 
incremental movement to 2050.

The crux of the matter is that the most prominent existential risk in 
human history does not conform to scientific models. It’s almost always 
ahead of the scientific models, sometimes by several decades. Then, why 
would it wait around for net zero by 2050?

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at 
rlhunziker at gmail.com.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/25/the-truth-about-ipcc-reports/

- -

/[ Podcast & video ]/
*David Spratt: Existential Risk Management*
https://genn.cc/blog/david-spratt-existential-risk-management/



/[  New episode from Nick Breeze - why incrementalism is failing us ] /
*David Spratt | Cascading Tipping Points & Existential Risk Management*
Mar 19, 2022
Nick Breeze ClimateGenn
In this ClimateGenn episode I am speaking with Research Director of the 
Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration in Melbourne, David 
Spratt, about assessing climate risk and why incremental tweaks to 
reduce emissions are failing us.

Suppoort and get preview and extra material via 
https://patreon.com/genncc and at https://genn.cc

We also discuss IPCC forecasts, political failure, and how change is 
possible but it requires a huge mobilisation of resources, coupled with 
public and political participation and leadership of the Zelensky variety.

The clock is ticking, parts of the system are tipping, whether you call 
it: code-red, an emergency, or blah blah blah, no one is immune from the 
cascade of climate impacts that we will face if we continue to do 
nothing to avert the growing threat of climate change this decade and 
into the future.

Thanks for listening to ClimateGenn, especially at a time when there is 
so much violence and the threat of escalation of war.

The pain that this is causing so many is inextricably linked to 
corruption and fossil fuels that extend well beyond Putin’s regime. I 
would very much like to express solidarity with the Ukrainian people, as 
well as with Russians who are standing up to the regime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9wB0P3Y5d0  (begins 1:30)



/[The news archive - looking back at a dis-informationist ]/ *
**March 27, 2007*
In a post on CallingAllWingnuts.com about a recent confrontation with 
Competitive Enterprise Institute honcho Myron Ebell, blogger Mike Stark 
observes:

    "Upon reflection, I really think there are a couple of lessons for
    progressives to be found in this five minute exchange.

    "First of all, when arguing with somebody that either has no
    credibility or is not arguing a credible position, don't donate the
    credibility they need to be seen as your equal."

    "You see, by calling his credibility into question immediately - and
    not letting him up for air - well, I've got no proof, but I really
    think that everyone in the room knew that Mr. Ebell had been
    bettered. When we ask policy or science questions of these
    charlatans, we give the impression that we care what they think. We
    don't. We know they are rank liars, we're just wondering if they'll
    be able to spin a sufficient answer. But these guys get millions of
    dollars a year from the largest corporate titans precisely because
    they have the skill to ink up the issue. Why let them show off?

    "Secondly, don't go out of your way to be nice or polite. Hell, I
    won't afford these profit-gandists any respect on my blog, why the
    hell should I do it face to face? A large part of their professional
    career derives from their ability to mock me and the things I
    believe in. The Competitive Enterprise Institute once liked global
    warming to 'being invaded by space aliens' for example. By
    addressing these people with the indignant scorn they deserve, you
    project the moral superiority of your position. To many times it
    seems that Democratic and progressive pundits are more interested in
    being our opponents' friends than we are in vigorously arguing the
    issues. In this media environment - when equal time is given to
    global warming deniers... well, we just can't afford the small talk.

    "In the end, these guys are not good people. This isn't a case of
    principled people disagreeing. At this point in the global warming
    debate, the only principled disagreements to be had revolve around
    what we should be doing to address the crisis. The Myron Ebells of
    the world - the die-hard denialists... well, we need to move them
    off the stage by marginalizing them at every opportunity."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/global-warming-phooey_b_44407.html


More information from daily summaries
---------------------------------------
Climate Nexus https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News summarizes the 
most important climate and energy news of the day, delivering an 
unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting. It also provides 
original reporting and commentary on climate denial and pro-polluter 
activity that would otherwise remain largely unexposed.    5 weekday

=================================

Carbon Brief Daily https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief 
sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of 
subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours 
of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our 
pick of the key studies published in the peer-reviewed journals.
more at https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief

==================================

The Daily Climate   Subscribe https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate impacts, 
solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better than coffee.
Other newsletters too
more at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/


/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/


/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/20220327/ee3ac8a5/attachment.htm>