<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><i><font size="+1"><b>April 16, 2020</b></font></i></p>
[NYTimes warns]<br>
<b>Wildlife Collapse From Climate Change Is Predicted to Hit
Suddenly and Sooner</b><br>
Scientists found a "cliff edge" instead of the slippery slope they
expected.<br>
- - <br>
The latest research adds to an already bleak picture for the world's
wildlife unless urgent action is taken to preserve habitats and
limit climate change. More than a million plant and animal species
are at risk of extinction because of the myriad ways humans are
changing the earth by farming, fishing, logging, mining, poaching
and burning fossil fuels.<br>
- -<br>
The study does not take into account other factors that could help
or hurt a species' survival. For example, some species may tolerate
or adapt to higher temperatures; on the other hand, if their food
sources could not, they would die off just the same.<br>
<br>
"It provides yet another, critical wake-up call about the massive
repercussions of a rapidly warming world," said Walter Jetz, an
ecologist at Yale University who did not participate in the study.
He added that it was more evidence of the importance of following
through on the pledges that nations around the world made in the
Paris Agreement on climate change. The Trump administration is in
the process of withdrawing from that commitment.<br>
<br>
The study suggested that even keeping global warming to less than 2
degrees Celsius, in accordance with the Paris Agreement, would still
leave many people and ecosystems vulnerable.<br>
<br>
"If we take action now, we limit this abrupt disruption to 2 percent
of the planet," Dr. Trisos said. "But that two percent of the planet
still has a lot of people living there in tropical regions. And they
need our help."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/climate/wildlife-population-collapse-climate-change.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/climate/wildlife-population-collapse-climate-change.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[recalculating]<br>
<b>Scientists confirm dramatic melting of Greenland ice sheet</b><br>
Study reveals loss largely due to high pressure zone not taken into
account by climate models<br>
There was a dramatic melting of Greenland's ice sheet in the summer
of 2019, researchers have confirmed, in a study that reveals the
loss was largely down to a persistent zone of high pressure over the
region.<br>
<br>
The ice sheet melted at a near record rate in 2019, and much faster
than the average of previous decades. Figures have suggested that in
July alone surface ice declined by 197 gigatonnes – equivalent to
about 80 million Olympic swimming pools.<br>
<br>
Now experts have examined the level of melting in more detail,
revealing what drove it. Crucially, the team note, the high pressure
conditions lasted for 63 of the 92 summer days in 2019, compared
with an average of just 28 days between 1981 and 2010. A similar
situation was seen in 2012, a record bad year for melting of the ice
sheet...<br>
- - -<br>
"Clearly, this shows that extreme melt events are becoming a lot
more frequent," he said, adding that the new study showed that
persistent atmospheric high pressure was an important factor,
resulting in clear skies and a lack of snowfall in the south and
warm, moist air being brought to northern parts of the ice sheet.
"In that sense, the extreme melt years can be seen as natural events
exacerbated by climate change," said Christoffersen.<br>
<br>
Prof Andy Shepherd from the University of Leeds said a fall in
surface mass balance was concerning. "If that drops below zero, then
the ice sheet is no longer viable because in every year it is losing
more ice than it gains," he said, adding that that was not even
counting the loss of icebergs. "Even if the glaciers stopped
flowing, which is not going to happen, it would mean that the ice
sheet still can't survive," he said.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/apr/15/scientists-confirm-dramatic-melting-greenland-ice-sheet">https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/apr/15/scientists-confirm-dramatic-melting-greenland-ice-sheet</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[persistent scourge]<br>
<b>Climate Science Deniers Turn to Attacking Coronavirus Models</b><br>
Vocal critics have cited perceived flaws in both climate and virus
modeling, despite scientific evidence to the contrary<br>
By Scott Waldman, E&E News on April 15, 2020<br>
A vocal set of conservative critics have increased their attacks
recently on the data modeling behind the novel coronavirus response,
and they claim--despite scientific evidence to the contrary--that
the flaws also prove the limits of climate change forecasts.<br>
<br>
The group, which includes federal lawmakers, climate science deniers
and conservative pundits with close White House connections, has
even called for congressional hearings into the coronavirus
modeling.<br>
<br>
That's in spite of assurances from public health officials that
better-than-expected U.S. death estimates for COVID-19 are because
millions of Americans responded to pleas for social distancing. The
most-used model now forecasts 60,000 U.S. deaths rather than 100,000
or more.<br>
<br>
"After #COVID-19 crisis passes, could we have a good faith
discussion about the uses and abuses of 'modeling' to predict the
future?" Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) tweeted. "Everything from public
health, to economic to climate predictions. It isn't the scientific
method, folks."...<br>
- -<br>
Health experts say the models worked the way they were supposed
to--by providing a glimpse into a dire future that was partially
averted because of collective action...<br>
- - <br>
"Any insinuation that scientists distorted their models into scaring
people and wrecking our economy is not only wrongheaded, it smacks
of an ulterior motive for even raising it," Bernstein said. "There's
no evidence that scientists have done anything to models that have
suggested we would have been far worse off having not done stuff to
keep ourselves safe, and I would say the same about climate models."<br>
<br>
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the immunologist who helps lead President Trump's
coronavirus response team, has repeatedly explained why the models
have shifting numbers.<br>
<br>
"Models are as good as the assumptions you put into them, and as we
get more data, then you put it in and that might change," he said at
a recent press briefing...<br>
- - -<br>
Nonetheless, conservative pundits, who are not trained as climate
scientists, have repurposed the coronavirus modeling to attack
climate projections in recent days.<br>
<br>
"It seems like the computer models for the corona virus pandemic are
about as accurate as the computer models that have failed so
miserably on global warming," tweeted Patrick Moore, the chairman of
the CO2 Coalition, which claims the world needs to burn more fossil
fuels to help the planet and has connections to the Trump White
House. "Proves you can't predict a chaotic, multi-factor, non-linear
future."<br>
<br>
The CO2 Coalition was founded by William Happer, who served on the
National Security Council at the White House and unsuccessfully
tried to launch a hostile review of climate science.<br>
<br>
Others predicted blowback if the coronavirus pandemic isn't
incredibly deadly.<br>
<br>
"I cannot even begin to describe the public backlash that will occur
if #Corinavirus [sic] kills fewer Americans this year than the flu,"
wrote Dinesh D'Souza, the conservative author who was pardoned by
Trump after a felony conviction of making illegal campaign
contributions. "For starters, the medical establishment will look
like even bigger fools than the #ClimateChange establishment."<br>
<br>
On Monday, Laura Ingraham, who has used her close relationship with
Trump to press untested drug cocktails as coronavirus treatments,
attacked the models on her Fox News show. A chyron at the bottom of
the screen read, "Faulty covid models causing panic." She said the
government has now figured out that "these fancy COVID-19 models
were wrong" and that her personal team of statisticians and medical
professionals who predicted as much were correct.<br>
<br>
"This is a lot of money that we're spending on a response that was
based, again, on faulty numbers," she said.<br>
<br>
Dismissing critics who don't understand or who misrepresent models
will be important as states look for the best ways to reopen around
the country, health experts say.<br>
<br>
The last few weeks are a proof that modeling works, said Dr. Georges
Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health
Association. Without their guidance, more people would have died,
more economic harm would have occurred and greater health care cost
burdens would have been placed on the system, he said.<br>
<br>
"The models become even more important now because we're going to
need to know when we should adjust our reopening," he said. "We're
going to need these models to help us know, as some kind of early
warning, when we should stop and pause or pull back a little bit,
because if we don't, what will happen is we will get too far down
the line and things will get much worse before they get better."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-deniers-turn-to-attacking-coronavirus-models/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-deniers-turn-to-attacking-coronavirus-models/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[brief cartoon video]<br>
<b>Debunking Cranky Uncle on future ice age</b><br>
Apr 15, 2020<br>
John Cook<br>
A debunking of the "we're heading into an ice age" myth, using
cartoons from the Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change book:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://crankyuncle.com/book">http://crankyuncle.com/book</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsY8XtmQgxE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsY8XtmQgxE</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[observation/opinion]<br>
<b>Obama Finally Seems to Get the Climate Crisis--Now Biden Needs to
Do the Same</b><br>
When Barack Obama became president in 2008, he knew much work lay
ahead. In his acceptance speech, he talked about a "planet in
peril." Before entering the White House, Obama offered a message to
the Global Climate Summit where he promised "a new chapter in
America's leadership in climate change."<br>
<br>
Fast forward a decade later, and the pages of that chapter remain
blank. The tiny steps Obama took on climate change haven't amounted
to much. And we're now facing a climate crisis that demands a lot
more than a cap-and-trade system and bogus clean coal
technologies--both of which he promised back in 2008 but didn't
deliver on. That's not enough anymore. The crisis demands the end of
fossil fuels. Stat.<br>
<br>
Obama finally appeared to acknowledge his failure on climate action
in an endorsement video for Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for
president and his former vice president. The question is if Biden is
up to the challenge.<br>
Obama said that the U.S. has to re-sign the Paris Agreement, but
that it's only a start. Any climate action has to go well beyond
that.<br>
"Science tells us we have to go much further, that it's time for us
to accelerate progress on bold new green initiatives that make our
economy a clean energy innovator, save us money, and secure our
children's future," Obama said in his endorsement.<br>
<br>
The initiatives Obama led were not that bold. In fact, a large part
of his energy legacy is the fracking boom across the U.S. In 2018,
he took credit for it, telling an audience at Rice University, "that
whole, suddenly America's like the biggest oil producer and the
biggest gas that was me, people."<br>
But the fossil fuel extraction method of choice for the Obama
administration emits a shit ton of methane, a greenhouse gas with 84
times the warming power of carbon over 20 years. Obama wanted to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by
2030, but that was never gonna be enough to avert the worst impacts
of climate change. Science now shows that, by 2030, the world has to
cut its emissions by nearly half the levels they were in 2010 with
developed countries like the U.S.--the biggest carbon
polluter--doing even more.<br>
<br>
The details of Obama's plans weren't enough to get us out of this
mess. Trump's plans never involved solving climate change. Obama,
however, is asking voters to put their faith in Biden to get it
done.<br>
<br>
Biden's climate proposals aren't bad, but they also don't go far
enough. He wouldn't ban fracking. He doesn't tell us what he plans
to spend on expanding public transit. He doesn't take seriously the
need for a Green New Deal, which aims to transform our economy by
decarbonizing large swaths of the economy in 10 years while pulling
communities out of poverty.<br>
<br>
That makes Biden essentially Obama, circa 2008. The difference is
that the Obama who spoke Tuesday appears a lot wiser on the climate
front than that senator-turned-president in 2008 or even 2012.
Still, he wasn't wise enough to call for a Green New Deal, which
would bring about this bold structural change he mentions. He even
alluded to the arguments within the party about it and other
policies, saying "Democrats may not always agree on every detail."
But what better time to roll it out than during the economic crisis
brought on by coronavirus?<br>
<br>
Senator Bernie Sanders' endorsed Biden on Monday, and the two have
agreed to a working group on climate change among others that could
push Biden to strengthening his climate plan. With Obama seeming to
grasp the urgency of the moment despite past mistakes, there's hope
for Biden to do the same. As for the other guy?<br>
<br>
"Our country's future hangs on this election," Obama said in his
endorsement.<br>
<br>
No, Mr. President. The world's future does. Another four years of
Trump would be a global disaster.<br>
- - <br>
Yessenia Funes<br>
Senior staff writer, Earther. All things environmental justice,
please. I'm addicted to Stardew and love few things more than I love
my cat.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/obama-finally-seems-to-get-the-climate-crisis-now-biden-1842866428">https://earther.gizmodo.com/obama-finally-seems-to-get-the-climate-crisis-now-biden-1842866428</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[NYTimes on the economy] <br>
<b>Think This Pandemic Is Bad? We Have Another Crisis Coming</b><br>
Addressing climate change is a big-enough idea to revive the
economy.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/opinion/climate-change-covid-economy.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/opinion/climate-change-covid-economy.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
April 16, 2005 </b></font><br>
<p>In his weekly radio address, President George W. Bush declares:<br>
<br>
"In the coming days and weeks I'll talk more about what we need to
do in Washington to make sure America has an energy policy that
reflects the demands of a new century. The first order of business
is for Congress to pass an energy bill. Next week Congress begins
debate on energy legislation and they need to send me a bill that
meets four important objectives:<br>
<br>
"First, the energy bill must encourage the use of technology to
improve conservation. We must find smarter ways to meet our energy
needs, and we must encourage Americans to make better choices
about energy consumption. We must also continue to invest in
research, so we will develop the technologies that would allow us
to conserve more and be better stewards of the environment. <br>
<br>
"Second, the energy bill must encourage more production at home in
environmentally sensitive ways. Over the past three years,
America's energy consumption has increased by about 4 percent,
while our domestic energy production has decreased by about 1
percent. That means more of our energy is coming from abroad. To
meet our energy needs and strengthen our national security we must
make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. <br>
<br>
"Third, the energy bill must diversify our energy supply by
developing alternative sources of energy like ethanol or
biodiesel. We need to promote safe, clean nuclear power. And to
create more energy choices, Congress should provide tax credits
for renewable power sources such as wind, solar, and landfill gas.
We must also continue our clean coal technology projects so that
we can use the plentiful source of coal in an environmentally
friendly way. The bill must also support pollution-free cars and
trucks, powered by hydrogen fuel cells instead of gasoline. <br>
<br>
"Finally, the energy bill must help us find better, more reliable
ways to deliver energy to consumers. In some parts of the country,
our transmission lines and pipelines are decades older than the
homes and businesses they supply. Many of them are increasingly
vulnerable to events that can interrupt and shut down power in
entire regions of the country. We must modernize our
infrastructure to make America's energy more secure and reliable."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050416.html">http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050416.html</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/<br>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries
no images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial
purposes.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>