[✔️] July 2, 2023- Global Warming News Digest | Hurricane tools, El Nino past 1.5 degrees , Radically local solutions, Lindzen the denier

Sun Jul 2 08:50:44 EDT 2023

/*July*//*2, 2023*/

/[ Associated Press calls it the New Abnormal  ]/
*Climate change keeps making wildfires and smoke worse. Scientists call 
it the ‘new abnormal’*
BY SETH BORENSTEIN AND MELINA WALLING
Published  June 30, 2023
It was a smell that invoked a memory. Both for Emily Kuchlbauer in North 
Carolina and Ryan Bomba in Chicago. It was smoke from wildfires, the 
odor of an increasingly hot and occasionally on-fire world.

Kuchlbauer had flashbacks to the surprise of soot coating her car three 
years ago when she was a recent college graduate in San Diego. Bomba had 
deja vu from San Francisco, where the air was so thick with smoke people 
had to mask up. They figured they left wildfire worries behind in 
California, but a Canada that’s burning from sea to warming sea brought 
one of the more visceral effects of climate change home to places that 
once seemed immune.

“It’s been very apocalyptic feeling, because in California the dialogue 
is like, ‘Oh, it’s normal. This is just what happens on the West Coast,’ 
but it’s very much not normal here,” Kuchlbauer said.

As Earth’s climate continues to change from heat-trapping gases spewed 
into the air, ever fewer people are out of reach from the billowing and 
deadly fingers of wildfire smoke, scientists say. Already wildfires are 
consuming three times more of the United States and Canada each year 
than in the 1980s and studies predict fire and smoke to worsen...
- -
Several scientists told the AP that the problem of smoke and wildfires 
will progressively worsen until the world significantly reduces 
greenhouse gas emissions, which has not happened despite years of 
international negotiations and lofty goals.

Fires in North America are generally getting worse, burning more land. 
Even before July, traditionally the busiest fire month for the country, 
Canada has set a record for most area burned with 31,432 square miles 
(81,409 square kilometers), which is nearly 15% higher than the old record.

“A year like this could happen with or without climate change, but 
warming temperatures just made it a lot more probable,” said A. Park 
Williams, a UCLA bioclimatologist who studies fire and water. “We’re 
seeing, especially across the West, big increases in smoke exposure and 
reduction in air quality that are attributable to increase in fire 
activity.”...
- -
Wildfires expose about 44 million people per year worldwide to unhealthy 
air, causing about 677,000 deaths annually with almost 39% of them 
children, according to a 2021 study out of the United Kingdom.

One study that looked at a dozen years of wildfire smoke exposure in 
Washington state showed a 1% all-ages increase in the odds of 
non-traumatic death the same day as the smoke hit the area and 2% for 
the day after. Risk of respiratory deaths jumped 14% and even more, 35%, 
for adults ages 45 to 64...
- -
Based on peer-reviewed studies, the Health Effects Institute estimated 
that smoke’s chief pollutant caused 4 million deaths worldwide and 
nearly 48,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2019.

The tiny particles making up a main pollutant of wildfire smoke, called 
PM2.5, are just the right size to embed deep in the lungs and absorb 
into the blood. But while their size has garnered attention, their 
composition also matters, said Kris Ebi, a University of Washington 
climate and health scientist.

“There is emerging evidence that the toxicity of wildfire smoke PM2.5 is 
more toxic than what comes out of tailpipes,” Ebi said.

A cascade of health effects may become a growing problem in the wake of 
wildfires, including downwind from the source, said Ed Avol, professor 
emeritus at the Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern 
California.
https://apnews.com/article/wildfire-smoke-canada-climate-change-new-normal-f22a68e7df9688ef8eccd970efde3baf

/[  bye bye burgers  ] /
*Why the media too often ignores the connection between climate change 
and meat*
The burger-sized hole in climate change coverage, explained.
By Kenny Torrella at KennyTorrella
Jul 1, 2023,
Last weekend, Elon Musk posted one of his more outrageously false tweets 
to date: “Important to note that what happens on Earth’s surface (eg 
farming) has no meaningful impact on climate change.”

Musk was, as he has been from time to time, wrong. As climate experts 
rushed to emphasize, farming actually accounts for around a quarter of 
global greenhouse gas emissions.

Before you add this to your list of criticisms of Musk, know that if 
you’re anything like the average person — or Musk himself — you too 
probably underestimate just how much agriculture, especially meat and 
dairy production, contributes to climate change and other environmental 
problems...
- -
*The food misinformation environment that reporters swim in*
Estimates vary, but peer-reviewed research says that animal agriculture 
causes between 15 percent to 19.6 percent of climate-warming emissions. 
The United Nations’ most recent estimate puts animal agriculture’s 
emissions at 11.1 percent, but it hasn’t been peer-reviewed and has been 
questioned by some food and climate researchers.

Last month, journalist Sophie Kevany explained in detail for Vox why 
there’s such a wide range in estimates, but here’s the gist: It’s hard 
to measure emissions from farms, there’s evidence these emissions are 
undercounted, and different models use different carbon accounting methods.

The range of estimates has left room for meat lobbyists to muddy the 
waters, creating an environment of misinformation and exaggeration...
- -
On top of applying healthy skepticism to claims made in the food and 
agriculture sphere, journalists could also be more specific by naming 
animal agriculture as the top cause for an environmental problem when 
appropriate, not agriculture writ large. For example, “agriculture” is 
sometimes cited as a major cause of the Colorado River water shortage, 
which could lead readers to think that the current sky-high levels of 
water use for agriculture in the Western US are just an inevitable part 
of feeding the world. But at least 70 percent of the water diverted from 
the Colorado River for agriculture is used to grow feed for beef and 
dairy cows, and animal products generally require much more water than 
plant-based foods.

Covering this huge, complex issue with skepticism and nuance requires 
time, resources, and specialization, all luxuries many reporters don’t 
have. The problem is a symptom of bigger challenges in journalism.

To be sure, in addition to journalists quoted in this article, there are 
a number of news outlets, non-profits, and writers that regularly report 
on how what we eat contributes to climate change. But an enormous 
coverage gap remains. It may just take time for stakeholders in the 
climate crisis — journalists, policymakers, environmentalists, and 
consumers — to catch up.

“The food conversation is probably about 20 years behind the energy 
conversation, and it is catching up, but it’s not visceral to people in 
the way energy is — that they immediately know energy is a climate 
issue,” said Michael Grunwald, a food and agriculture columnist for 
Canary Media, in the Sentient Media panel discussion.

But time is in short supply. Experts say that if we don’t change what we 
eat — especially reducing beef and dairy — we can’t meet the Paris 
climate agreement of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or 
less. Journalists have risen to the occasion before: Coverage of climate 
change has increased in recent decades, especially in the last few 
years. Hopefully reporting on the emissions from what we put on our 
plate will follow a similar trajectory.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23778399/media-ignores-climate-change-beef-meat-dairy

- -

/[founded by Dr Sailesh Rao]/
*Climate Healers *is focused on promoting a New Story of human belonging 
in Nature and a New phase of humanity as we evolve to a Vegan World by 2026.
Our manifesto
Put on your Chrysalis avatar and leave your Caterpillar past behind. Let 
us join together as true equals. We can use our individual unique gifts 
in a cooperative effort to depollute and regenerate the Earth in 
preparation for the birth of the Butterfly (Homo Ahimsa) stage of humanity.
https://climatehealers.org/

/[  Place your bets on predicting hurricane tracks  ]/
*Which hurricane models should you trust in 2023?*
How the models did last year, what’s new this year – and why you should 
pay the most heed to the National Hurricane Center forecast. 
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/2023-atlantic-hurricane-season-outlook
Jeff MastersBob Henson
by JEFF MASTERS and BOB HENSON
JUNE 30, 2023
For those puzzling over the various hurricane computer forecast models 
to figure out which one to believe, the best answer is: Don’t believe 
any of them. Put your trust in the National Hurricane Center, or NHC, 
forecast.

It’s always been the case that a particular forecast model may 
outperform the official NHC forecast in some situations. However, the 
2022 NHC Forecast Verification Report reiterates a longstanding truth: 
overall, it is very difficult for any one model to consistently beat the 
NHC forecasts for track and for intensity...
- -
Track forecasts: New levels of accuracy
During the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, NHC track forecasts had 
accuracies notably better than the five-year average. New records for 
track accuracy were set at time frames of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 4, and 5 days....
- -

    Here is a list of some of the top hurricane forecast models used by NHC:

    *Euro: *The European Center for Medium-range Weather Forecasting
    (ECMWF) global forecast model

    *GFS: *The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    Global Forecast System model
    *
    **UKMET:* The United Kingdom Met Office’s global forecast model

    *HAFS: *Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System (newly added in 2023;
    see below)

    *HMON:* Hurricanes in a Multi-scale Ocean-coupled Non-hydrostatic
    regional model, initialized using GFS data

    *HWRF: *Hurricane Weather and Research Forecasting regional model,
    initialized using GFS data

    *COAMPS: *COAMPS-TC regional model, initialized using GFS data...

- -
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/06/which-hurricane-models-should-you-trust-in-2023/

/[ trending heat ]/
*El Niño could push global warming past 1.5℃ – but what is it and how 
does it affect the weather in Europe?*
Published: June 29, 2023
Scientists have warned that 2024 could mark the year when global warming 
exceeds 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels. They attribute these 
predictions, at least in part, to the emergence of an El Niño event.

An El Niño is declared when the sea surface temperature in large parts 
of the central or eastern equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean warms 
significantly – sometimes by as much as 2℃. This additional heat in turn 
warms the atmosphere. During El Niño years, this warming contributes to 
a temporary rise in the global temperature by a fraction of a degree.
- -
But even then, the underlying warming trend caused by climate change is 
making higher temperatures more probable in all seasons. Together, these 
other factors make any climatic signals from El Niño harder to detect 
and forecast. Caution must therefore be exercised before attributing 
anomalies in European winter weather to El Niño alone.
https://theconversation.com/el-nino-could-push-global-warming-past-1-5-but-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-affect-the-weather-in-europe-208412

/[ after the  Australian fires   ]/
*"Radically Local" - Margi Prideaux, live with David B.*
Collapse Club
Streamed live on Mar 30, 2022
For 30 years, Margi Prideaux created conservation policy on a large 
scale, writing international treaties to protect wildlife and natural 
systems. Then, on January 3, 2020, the "Ravine" fire on Kangaroo Island, 
Australia, destroyed her home and farm, in the midst of a two-week-long 
firestorm that consumed 47 million acres of vegetation, 89 homes, 650 
farm buildings, and millions of wild animals.

"Pain makes people change," Margi says. "For thirty years my raison 
d’être has been as a voice for nature in human affairs. I believed in 
progressive, incremental change. In protected areas and big laws. I 
believed in hope. Now, I know it is too late." See her website at: 
https://wildpolitics.co/

Margi now advocates for a "radically local" approach to conservation, 
putting power in the hands of the people who live on the land, who know 
the plants and animals, and who can create a realistic vision for survival.

"We have no choice left but to do what was obvious all along — to 
empower radically local conservation, immediately — not incrementally, 
aiming for ten- or twenty-years’ time," Margi says. "We need local 
roundtables of planning and decision, populated by those who carry the 
knowledge of our land, and of fire, flood, and drought — First Nations, 
farmers, fishers, and conservation landholders — with science there to 
educate and empower."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LfmxmQly0Y

/
/

/[ humor, Larry David confronts the weatherman ]/
*Larry David and the Weatherman*
Jul 31, 2009
Larry David suspects that the local weatherman is predicting rain just 
so he can have the golf course to himself. Priceless.
This clip features one of my all-time favorite television quotes: 
"There's a jet stream of bullshit coming out of your mouth, my friend!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oX-8TbQhk0

/[The news archive - looking back -- at an infamous academic 
consistently paid by Exxon https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/ I 
don't like to print disinformation -- but he is a notorious disinformer. ]/
/*July 2, 2006*/
July 2, 2006: Notorious climate denier Dick Lindzen whines, moans, 
kvetches and complains about "An Inconvenient Truth" in a piece for the 
Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com.

[ see also Info from DeSmog https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/]

    Don't Believe the Hype
    *Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.*

    BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
    Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

    According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in
    for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in
    sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical
    disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.

    Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel,
    proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore
    were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the
    consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why
    not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific
    community is over."

    That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George
    Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk.
    What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there
    really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and
    then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over,
    it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the
    first place.

    The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global
    warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed.
    Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been
    lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree.
    Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes
    after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr.
    Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best
    estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in
    his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists
    "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence"
    one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that
    scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

    So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus."
    Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or
    not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely,
    shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly
    inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these
    include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that
    icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so
    far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on
    average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing
    ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so
    ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context,
    these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

    They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating
    since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several
    centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have
    stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly,
    we don't know why.

    The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are
    predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of
    warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common
    in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes,
    too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is
    likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies
    on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the
    origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of
    trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the
    profession.
    Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't
    attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure,
    there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for
    Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be
    global warming because he can't think of anything else. While
    arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common
    in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of
    weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

    A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously
    ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are
    always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all
    change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to
    exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly
    not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the
    actual science.

    A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the
    environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the
    scientific community now agrees that significant warming is
    occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on
    the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some
    level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate
    community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have
    increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past
    century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940,
    decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the
    '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

    There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in
    the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume
    in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been
    no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber
    (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase
    should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were
    kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to
    somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the
    small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide
    rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no
    cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense
    effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from
    additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

    Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of
    climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless
    there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with
    surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair
    was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental
    Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers"
    reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a
    discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the
    smoking gun for Kyoto.

    The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what
    has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what
    mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some
    deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an
    alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for
    policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual
    text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking
    into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed
    warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the
    increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

    In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief
    (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It
    again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the
    report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that
    "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely
    mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some
    significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural
    variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to
    presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous
    decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to
    man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.

    More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social
    scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of
    Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words
    "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose
    abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A
    British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and
    found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and
    that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called
    consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

    Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush
    administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research,
    declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the
    climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed."
    What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse
    warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface
    temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the
    atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections
    to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing
    the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what
    greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is
    still very much open.

    So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would
    suggest at least three points.
    First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with
    understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types,
    environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such
    claims also serve to intimidate the public and even
    scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics.
    Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely
    cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster
    constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an
    inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political
    issue but a "moral" crusade.

    Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by
    scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt
    at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This
    time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

    Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science
    at MIT.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060705111127/http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 

[ be sure to see DeSmog https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/ for a 
detailed analysis of Mr Lindzen's work]

=======================================
*Mass media is lacking, many daily summariesdeliver global warming news 
- a few are email delivered*

=========================================================
**Inside Climate News*
Newsletters
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or 
once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top headlines 
deliver the full story, for free.
https://insideclimatenews.org/
---------------------------------------
**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
==================================
*T*he 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  at https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/

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

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
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 personal 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/20230702/f164b8da/attachment.htm>