<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<i><font size="+1"><b>June 14, 2020</b></font></i><br>
<br>
[OK for info]<br>
<b>Earth Just Had Its Record Warmest May, Multiple Analyses Found</b><br>
-- Three separate analyses found Earth had a record warm May in
2020.<br>
-- NOAA's analysis found May 2020 tied 2016 as the planet's warmest
since 1880.<br>
-- The epicenter of unusual May warmth was in Russia.<br>
May was cooler than average in parts of North America, Europe and
Australia.<br>
2020 could be the planet's warmest year in recent records.<br>
<br>
May 2020 was Earth's warmest May in at least 141 years of
temperature records, continuing a warming trend that could make 2020
the planet's warmest year.<br>
<br>
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies found May 2020 global
temperatures were 1.02 degrees Celsius above the 1951-1980 average,
the warmest May in their records dating to 1880, 0.06 degrees
Celsius above the previous record warmest May in 2016.<br>
<br>
That may not sound like much of a difference in temperature, but in
the realm of globally-computed temperatures, it's significant. This
was the first May in NASA's database in which global temperatures
were over 1 degree Celsius above average...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2020-06-12-may-2020-global-temperatures-noaa-nasa-ecmwf">https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2020-06-12-may-2020-global-temperatures-noaa-nasa-ecmwf</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[checking the numbers]<br>
<b>Climate worst-case scenarios may not go far enough, cloud data
shows</b><br>
Modelling suggests climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon
emissions than thought<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/13/climate-worst-case-scenarios-clouds-scientists-global-heating">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/13/climate-worst-case-scenarios-clouds-scientists-global-heating</a>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Video - particulates]<br>
<b>Effects of Aerosol Reductions on Arctic Temperature Rise and
Rapid Arctic Sea Ice Loss: Part 2 of 2</b><br>
Jun 12, 2020<br>
Paul Beckwith<br>
Here, and in my last video I ask whether there is a large aerosol
reduction influence on rising Arctic temperatures, and thus on rapid
Arctic sea ice melt losses. Global aerosol reductions have occurred
this year due to worldwide Coronavirus pandemic caused industrial
shutdowns. I examine two recent scientific papers that look at
aerosol/sea ice connections; namely "Impact of Aerosol Emission
Controls on Future Sea Ice Cover" and "Elucidating the Role of
Anthropogenic Aerosols in Arctic Sea Ice Variations". <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf-rt08Cxn8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf-rt08Cxn8</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[another textbook where its high cost correlates to great
importance]<br>
<b>Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for
Environmental Policy </b><br>
by Michael Oppenheimer (Author), Naomi Oreskes (Author), Dale
Jamieson (Author), Keynyn Brysse (Author), Jessica O’Reilly
(Author), Matthew Shindell (Author), Milena Wazeck (Author)... <br>
Discerning Experts uncovers factors that can generate systematic
bias and error, and recommends how the process can be improved. As
the first study of the internal workings of large environmental
assessments, this book reveals their strengths and weaknesses, and
explains what assessments can--and cannot--be expected to contribute
to public policy and the common good.<br>
<b>Editorial Reviews</b><br>
<blockquote>"This book provides an essential examination of the
factors that shape and dictate our climate policy."<br>
<br>
"A meticulously researched study . . . . Oppenheimer et al. have
produced what is essentially an assessment of assessments, and so
its syntheses of insights across the case-study chapters add new
knowledge even while they validate old knowledge that had formerly
been largely anecdotal for most of us. This volume is therefore
essential reading for participants of any large environmental
assessment. . . . Discerning Experts is not exactly the ‘first’
comparative study of multiple assessments, but it is an important
one because of the extraordinary quality of its documentation and
analysis as well as its clever creation of critical and
instructive diversity across its three case studies. . . . Natural
and physical scientists will see how their work can be transmitted
across humanity to help inform opinion about what is going on and
perhaps what to do--on the basis of rigorous science. Perhaps, the
largest value will be found among the young scholars who do their
homework after being invited to participate in their first
assessment. After they read this volume, they will understand what
to expect and why their signing on is a valuable investment of
their time." -- Climatic Change<br>
<br>
"What do the ozone layer, the Antarctic ice sheet, and acid rain
have in common? All are sites of scientific 'assessments':
prolonged, focused, collaborative, and often international work of
experts. The thousands of pages of reports they draft offer the
hope of summarizing scientific findings, extending scientific
questions, and recommending policy outcomes. But do the elusive
dream of consensus and fear of accusations of political bias
produce watered down policy? Or should scientists be bolder in
their assessments of impending disasters? Combining the insights
of science, policy, and science studies, this valuable book offers
a guide for experts of all kinds navigating the always messy world
of policy-relevant science."<br>
-- Janet Vertesi, Princeton University<br>
<br>
"This book is a must-read for scientists and leaders of ongoing
assessments, because it showcases the dilemma between consolidated
knowledge, communicated as consensus, and challenges of
uncertainties associated with emerging science."<br>
-- Thomas Stocker, University of Bern, Co-Chair of IPCC from 2008
to 2015<br>
<br>
"This is the first major study of what scientists actually do when
they 'assess' in an assessment. It makes graphic how the
development and assessment of scientific knowledge are interwoven
and the vexed production of 'policy-ready knowledge' from this.
Altogether a rich, original, and thought-provoking work."<br>
-- Nancy Cartwright, Durham University<br>
<br>
"The book is rich with insights about the ways assessments
contribute to the agendas of science and policy, often in
unintended ways. Reading it can improve the contribution of every
scientist thinking of working on an assessment and the value
obtained by every policymaker planning to use one."<br>
-- Chris Field, Stanford University, co-chair of IPCC WGII,
2008-2015 --This text refers to the hardcover edition.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.amazon.com/Discerning-Experts-Scientific-Assessment-Environmental-ebook/dp/B07P2JYNNY">https://www.amazon.com/Discerning-Experts-Scientific-Assessment-Environmental-ebook/dp/B07P2JYNNY</a><br>
- - -<br>
[Article in the Guardian asks if climate models are too
conservative]<br>
<b>The real reason some scientists downplay the risks of climate
change</b><br>
Climate deniers often accuse scientists of exaggerating the threats
associated with the climate crisis, but if anything they’re often
too conservative...<br>
- - <br>
While climate skeptics and deniers often accuse scientists of
exaggerating the threats associated with the climate crisis, the
available evidence suggests the opposite. By and large, scientists
have either been right in their assessments, or have been unduly
conservative. We noticed a clear pattern of underestimation of
certain key climate indicators, and therefore underestimation of the
threat of climate disruption. When new observations of the climate
system have provided more or better data, or permitted us to
re-evaluate earlier conclusions, the findings for ice extent, sea
level rise and ocean temperature have generally been worse than
previously thought.<br>
One of the factors that appears to contribute to this trend of
underestimation is the perceived need for consensus, or what we call
"univocality": the felt need to speak in a single voice.<br>
<br>
Many scientists worry that if they publicly air their disagreement,
government officials will conflate their differences of opinion with
ignorance and use this as justification for inaction.<br>
<br>
Others worry that even if policy-makers want to act, they will find
it difficult to do so if scientists fail to send an unambiguous
message. Therefore, scientists actively seek to find their common
ground, and to focus on those areas of agreement. In some cases,
where there are irreconciliable differences of opinion, scientists
may say nothing, giving the erroneous impression that nothing is
known.<br>
<br>
How does the pressure for univocality lead to underestimation?
Consider a case in which most scientists think that the correct
answer to a question is in the range one to 10, but some believe
that it could be as high as 100. In this case, everyone will agree
that it is at least one to 10, but not everyone will agree that it
could be as high as 100. Therefore, the area of agreement is one to
10, and this will be reported as the consensus view. Wherever there
is a range of possible outcomes that includes a long, high-end tail
of probability, the area of overlap will lie at or near the low end.<br>
<br>
We are not suggesting that every example of under-estimation is
caused by the factors we observed in our work, nor that the demand
for consensus always leads to underestimation. But we found that
this pattern occurred in all of the cases that we studied. We also
found that the institutional aspects of assessment, including who
the authors are and how they are chosen, how the substance is
divided into chapters, and guidance emphasizing consensus, also
generally tilt in favor of scientific conservatism.<br>
<br>
Knowing this, what do we do?<br>
<br>
To scientists, we suggest that you should not view consensus as a
goal. Consensus is an emergent property, something that may come
forth as the result of scientific work, discussion and debate. When
that occurs, it is important to articulate the consensus as clearly
and specifically as possible. But where there are substantive
differences of opinion, they should be acknowledged and the reasons
for them explained. Scientific communities should also be open to
experimenting with alternative models for making and expressing
group judgments, and to learning more about how policy makers
actually interpret the findings that result. Such approaches may
contribute to assessments being more useful tools as we face the
reality of adapting to the climate crisis and the disruptions that
will occur.<br>
<br>
For political leaders and business people, we think it is important
for you to know that it is extremely unlikely that scientists are
exaggerating the threat of the climate crisis. It is far more likely
that things are worse than scientists have said. We have already
seen that the impacts of increased greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere are unfolding more rapidly than scientists predicted.
There is a high likelihood that they will continue to do so, and
that the IPCC estimates - that emissions must be rapidly reduced, if
not entirely eliminated, by 2050 - may well be optimistic. The fact
that this conclusion is hard to swallow does not make it untrue.<br>
<br>
And for ordinary citizens, it is important to recognize that
scientists have done their job. It is now up to us to force our
leaders to act upon what we know, before it is too late.<br>
<br>
Dale Jamieson, Michael Oppenheimer and Naomi Oreskes are authors of
Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for
Environmental Policy. This piece is largely excerpted from that book<br>
- - -<br>
[video classic, deep discussion, advanced science]<br>
<b>Did scientists get climate change wrong? </b>[no, of course not,
but it is complicated]<br>
Nov 15, 2019<br>
Sabine Hossenfelder<br>
Interview with Prof Tim Palmer from the University of Oxford.<br>
A recent opinion piece in the New York Times argued that scientists
got climate change wrong<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fkCo_trbT8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fkCo_trbT8</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 -
June 14, 2005 </b></font><br>
ExxonMobil announces that it has hired former Bush administration
official Philip Cooney, who had just resigned from the
administration after the New York Times revealed his obsession with
censoring climate science.<br>
<blockquote><b>Exxon hires Bush energy aide</b><br>
Published: June 14, 2005 <br>
By Lisa Sanders<br>
Figure in global-warming row moves from White House<br>
DALLAS (MarketWatch) -- Philip Cooney, a former White House
official who resigned last week, will join Exxon Mobil in the
fall, MarketWatch learned late Tuesday.<br>
<br>
Cooney, most recently the chief of staff to President Bush's
Council on Environmental Quality, left amid claims by critics that
he edited reports on global warming to downplay concerns raised by
the scientific community.<br>
<br>
Scientists have raised concerns that emissions from fossil fuels
such as oil and coal are being trapped in the earth's lower
atmosphere, creating a "greenhouse" effect that is accelerating
changes in the climate.<br>
<br>
An Exxon Mobil XOM, 0.45% spokesman acknowledged that Cooney would
join the company but declined further comment on what role he
would play.<br>
<br>
The spokesman also said Exxon takes global warming seriously but
is not convinced about how greenhouse-gas emissions affect climate
change.<br>
<br>
Before coming to the White House, Cooney worked as lobbyist at the
American Petroleum Institute, which is the chief representative of
the oil and gas industry...<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-mobil-hires-former-bush-environment-aide">http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-mobil-hires-former-bush-environment-aide</a><br>
<br>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/<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>