<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>December 18, 2020</b></font></i></p>
[many weathers define climate]<br>
<b>How climate change is affecting winter storms.</b><br>
Dec. 17, 2020, <br>
By John Schwartz<br>
The major winter storm that hit the Eastern United States on
Wednesday and Thursday probably prompted some people to ask, “What
happened to global warming?”<br>
<br>
But although it’s becoming increasingly clear that climate change
does have an effect on storms, the relationship can be complex and,
yes, counterintuitive. “There were these expectations that winter
was basically going to disappear on us,” said Judah Cohen, director
of seasonal forecasting at AER, a company that provides information
to clients about weather and climate-related risk.<br>
<br>
Although winters are becoming warmer and somewhat milder over all,
extreme weather events have also been on the increase, and
especially in the Northeastern United States, as Dr. Cohen pointed
out in a recent paper in the journal Nature Climate Change. From the
winter of 2008-9 until 2017-18, there were 27 major Northeast winter
storms, three to four times the totals for each of the previous five
decades.<br>
<br>
One of the factors potentially feeding storms is a warmer
atmosphere, which can hold more water vapor; not only can that mean
more precipitation, but when the vapor forms clouds, “it releases
heat into the air, which provides fuel for storms,” said Jennifer
Francis, a senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center.
Also potentially important, but less understood, she noted, is “the
increased tendency for the jet stream to take big swoops north and
south,” setting up weather phenomena like the dreaded polar vortex.<br>
<br>
Does that mean this particular storm has been fueled by climate
change? Jonathan E. Martin, a professor in the department of
atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, cautioned against drawing quick conclusions.<br>
<br>
Because of the “enormous natural variability” in storms and the
weather they deliver, “I think it is a dangerous business
attributing individual winter storms, or characteristics of them, to
climate change,” he said. And this storm in particular, he added, is
getting a lot of its moisture from water vapor evaporated off the
Atlantic Ocean, which complicates the picture.<br>
<br>
Dr. Francis agreed that any connections are complex, but added, “all
storms now form in a greatly altered climate, so there’s little
doubt that the same storm decades ago would not be the same.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/17/climate/climate-change-winter.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/17/climate/climate-change-winter.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[More reasons to wear a mask]<br>
<b>Wildfire smoke, a potential infectious agent</b><br>
Leda N. Kobziar1, George R. Thompson III2<br>
<br>
Science 18 Dec 2020:<br>
Vol. 370, Issue 6523, pp. 1408-1410<br>
DOI: 10.1126/science.abe8116<br>
<br>
Wildfires over the past 3 years have resulted in lengthy episodes of
smoke inundation across major metropolitan areas in Australia,
Brazil, and the United States. In 2020, air quality across the
western United States reached and sustained extremely unhealthy to
hazardous levels for successive weeks from August through November.
Although the pulmonary and cardiovascular consequences of human
exposure to smoke particulate matter are extensively researched,
there remains little recognition or monitoring of a smoke component
with potentially important health repercussions: microbes.<br>
<br>
Wildland fire is a source for bioaerosols that differ in composition
and concentration from those found under background conditions, and
most of these microbes in smoke are viable. Bioaerosols, composed of
fungal and bacterial cells and their metabolic by-products, are
known to affect human health. At the same time, respiratory allergic
and inflammatory diseases, including asthma and bronchitis, are
exacerbated by exposure to wildfire smoke. However, the risk of
infection to the upper and lower respiratory tract after exposure to
wildfire smoke is frequently overlooked. Smoke-related immunologic
deficits and inflammatory responses may exacerbate the effects of
inhalation of airborne microbial particulates and toxicants in
smoke. The intersection of these epidemiological trends and smoke
microbial content has yet to be addressed in public health and
atmospheric sciences, despite compelling overlaps of increasing
mycoses rates and increasing wildfire smoke in some locations (e.g.,
aspergillosis, invasive mold infections, and coccidioidomycosis in
the western United States).<br>
<br>
Smoke plume temperatures are determined by fire behavior and
meteorological factors and can exceed presumed temperature
tolerances of some microbial organisms. However, a high degree of
variability in fuels, ambient air mixing, and fire behavior results
in a range of biologic niches and responses, especially at smaller
scales. The energy release during a wildland fire varies in space
and time by orders of magnitude, so that microscopic-scale biota
likely experience considerable heterogeneity in heat transfer and
may escape the duration of high temperature that leads to mortality.
In addition to species-specific resistance to heat, this may help
explain why some soil-dwelling microbes appear tolerant of, and even
proliferate under, high temperatures following high-intensity and/or
high-severity wildfire. Pyrogenic carbon produced by wildland fire
provides temporary habitat for soil microbes and could potentially
function similarly in air for microbes aerosolized from soils and
both living and dead plant materials: Microbial cells have been
found to associate positively with particulate matter. Particulate
matter in smoke confers attenuation of ultraviolet-B (UV-B) by 80%
and UV-A by up to 74%—radiation that would otherwise decrease
bioaerosol viability. Additionally, water vapor is a product of
biomass combustion and may also play a role in vectoring microbes
from the combustion zone into a smoke column, limiting desiccation
of entrained organisms.<br>
<br>
Microbes may also be drawn into convective columns from outside the
combustion zone. For example, a plume from the El Portal wildfire in
Yosemite National Park, California, caused updraft winds of 13.5 m
s−1 (10), whereas dry spore–discharging fungi can be emitted from
soils with surface winds of only ∼1 m s−1 (11). Once aerosolized,
microbes, spores, or fungal conidia <5 µm in aerodynamic diameter
have the potential to travel hundreds of miles, depending on fire
behavior and atmospheric conditions, and are eventually deposited or
inhaled downwind of a fire. Smoke emissions from high-intensity,
large wildfires have been transported across continents, increasing
particulate matter concentrations in distant locations. The
consequences for more immediate populations, such as firefighters on
the front line who often spend up to 14 consecutive days in smoky
conditions, are likely greater given that microbial concentration in
smoke is higher near the source of a fire (see the figure). For
example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counts
firefighting as an at-risk profession for coccidioidomycosis, an
infection caused by a pathogenic fungus well known to be aerosolized
when soils are disturbed.<br>
<br>
So far, studies measuring smoke transport of microbes have been
limited to direct measures during prescribed fires and indirect
measures of microbes or their chemical indicators in distal
smoke-polluted air. Even in low-intensity prescribed fires,
microbial cell counts from smoke averaged 6.7 × 104 cells m−3,
approximately five times that of background concentrations (1.3 ×
104 cells m−3), and equivalent to ∼7.2 × 109 cells m−2 burned area.
The estimated lowest cell counts leading to reduced airway
conductance, function, and inflammation effect in nonsensitive
populations range from 1 × 104 to 1 × 105 m−3 for aerosolized fungal
spores. Therefore, the potential for wildland fire's microbial
content to affect humans who breathe in smoke, especially from
high-emissions wildfires or for multiple weeks, is appreciable. How
far and which microbes are transported in smoke under various
conditions are critical unknowns, but the relevance of these
questions is increasing with longer wildfire seasons and higher
severity trends.<br>
<br>
Addressing these unknowns will require a multidisciplinary approach
representing expertise in fire ecology, environmental microbiology,
epidemiology, public health and infectious disease, and atmospheric
sciences. The knowledge gained has the potential to answer questions
about the consequences of wildland fire specific to each of these
disciplines. For example, what roles does fire play in the spread of
disease, and can natural reservoirs and affected populations be
linked through smoke to predict public health problems before they
occur? Exploration of infections and indicators such as antibiotic
use in populations subjected to known amounts and durations of
wildfire smoke is a promising first direction.<br>
<br>
Given that climate change impacts on wildfire are predicted to lead
to total emissions (greenhouse and trace gases plus particulate
matter) increases of 19 to 101% in California alone through 2100, it
is important that atmospheric and public health sciences expand
their perspectives to include the potential impact of smoke's
microbial cargo on human populations. This is especially relevant
where smoky skies are more likely to be a seasonal norm rather than
a rare event.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6523/1408">https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6523/1408</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[sort of like the tides]<br>
<b>Huge methane cache beneath Arctic could be unlocked by the moon</b><br>
Methane release changes with the tides.<br>
Their discovery implies that scientists have been underestimating
greenhouse gas emissions in the Arctic<br>
"What we found was unexpected and the implications are big. This is
a deep-water site. Small changes in pressure can increase the gas
emissions but the methane will still stay in the ocean due to the
water depth. But what happens in shallower sites? This approach
needs to be done in shallow Arctic waters as well, over a longer
period. In shallow water, the possibility that methane will reach
the atmosphere is greater," Knies said.<br>
<br>
This newly discovered phenomenon also raises questions about how
rising sea levels and ocean warming, both of which are caused by
climate change, will interact. Because high tides reduce methane
emissions, it's possible rising sea levels, which come with higher
tides, might partially counterbalance the threat of increased gas
emissions being caused by a warming ocean. <br>
<br>
Originally published on Live Science.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.livescience.com/moon-trigger-methane-release-arctic.html">https://www.livescience.com/moon-trigger-methane-release-arctic.html</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
[source material in Nature Communications]<br>
<b>Impact of tides and sea-level on deep-sea Arctic methane
emissions</b><br>
Nabil Sultan, Andreia Plaza-Faverola, Sunil Vadakkepuliyambatta,
Stefan Buenz & Jochen Knies <br>
Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 5087 (2020) <br>
<blockquote>Abstract<br>
Sub-sea Arctic methane and gas hydrate reservoirs are expected to
be severely impacted by ocean temperature increase and sea-level
rise. Our understanding of the gas emission phenomenon in the
Arctic is however partial, especially in deep environments where
the access is difficult and hydro-acoustic surveys are sporadic.
Here, we report on the first continuous pore-pressure and
temperature measurements over 4 days in shallow sediments along
the west-Svalbard margin. Our data from sites where gas emissions
have not been previously identified in hydro-acoustic profiles
show that tides significantly affect the intensity and periodicity
of gas emissions. These observations imply that the quantification
of present-day gas emissions in the Arctic may be underestimated.
High tides, however, seem to influence gas emissions by reducing
their height and volume. Hence, the question remains as to whether
sea-level rise may partially counterbalance the potential threat
of submarine gas emissions caused by a warmer Arctic Ocean.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18899-3">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18899-3</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[climate solutions Washington Post]<br>
<b>Battling America’s ‘dirty secret’</b><br>
Climate change raises the risk from failing sewage systems. So
Catherine Coleman Flowers is working for a new way to deal with
waste.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/12/17/climate-solutions-sewage/?arc404=true">https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2020/12/17/climate-solutions-sewage/?arc404=true</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[$chadenfreude]<br>
<b>Solar just made Banks write off a $1 bn. Australian Coal Plant as
Worthless; What’s in Your Retirement Portfolio?</b><br>
JUAN COLE 12/17/2020<br>
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Daniel Mercer at the Australian
Broadcasting Company reports that the newest coal-fired power plant
in the country, the 10-year-old, nearly $1 bn. USD Bluewater
facility, has been written off as worthless by its investors.<br>
- -<br>
Mercer reports that financial analysts are predicting that there is
going to be a lot of this sort of thing.<br>
<br>
In fact, if any of you has coal stocks in your retirement portfolio,
I’d drop them like a hot potato.<br>
<br>
The plant was co-owned by the Japanese companies Sumitomo and
Kansai, who bought it nine years ago for 1.2 billion Australian
dollars ($911 mn. USD). Both have written it down to zero as a tax
loss.<br>
<br>
Nithin Coca at Ozy reports that<br>
<br>
“Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Mizuho Financial Group and Sumitomo
Mitsui Financial Group — all announced that they would gradually
reduce investment in overseas coal-fired power plants. Then, in
July, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, one of the
world’s largest aid and development financiers, announced it too
would be shifting away from coal. “<br>
Part of the skittishness of Japanese banks comes from the policies
of the new Japanese prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, who succeeded
the ailing Shinzo Abe in mid-September. Although Suga is from the
same party and is an Abe protege, he has struck out in a new
direction with regard to clean energy, something Abe had never been
interested in. (I know; I did some energy consulting in Japan,
pushing renewables, about a decade ago. They said they were in the
economic doldrums, and surrounded by enemies. I told them, ‘solar
and wind are just technology; you’re good at that stuff.’ They said
things like ‘Japan is small and cloudy and where would you put the
panels?’ I was told afterwards, “they didn’t listen to you.”)<br>
<br>
Suga announced in early October that Japan will aim for carbon
neutrality by 2050, and is reviewing its 2030 goals so as to make
sure it is in a position to hit the 2050 target.<br>
<br>
Japanese banks see the writing on the wall. There is no way to get
to carbon neutrality on any realistic timeline unless the world
dumps coal yesterday.<br>
<br>
Likewise, South Korea will shutter all its 30 coal plants by 2034
and will try to quadruple its renewables by then.<br>
<br>
It isn’t just Australia, Japan and South Korea where the writing is
on the wall.<br>
<br>
Colorado air quality officials have just ordered 3 coal-fired
plants, which had planned to close in 2030, to take steps to
accelerate that timeline. Because of polluting air haze and because
of Colorado’s own 2030 emissions goals, Tri-State, Xcel and Platte
River Power will have to shutter the plants no later than 2028. The
federal Clean Air Act has a haze reduction rule for national parks,
and the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission was able to invoke
it for the Rocky Mountain National Park.<br>
<br>
Burning coal is the most carbon-intensive thing humans do. In
addition to spewing dangerous heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere,
which acts like the detonation of large numbers of atom bombs up
there to heat the earth, burning coal also puts mercury (a nerve
poison) into the environment, along with particulate matter that
contributes to lung and heart disease.<br>
<br>
Although the US has cut coal emissions by 45% in the past decade,
and retired 9.3 gigawatts worth of the nasty stuff in 2020 (a 30%
reduction), most of the remaining super-emitting plants are expected
to survive to at least 2025 unless the Environmental Protection
Agency can put pressure on them. So argues Benjamin Storrow at
E&E.<br>
<br>
So that is Mr. Biden’s task. Find legal ways to regulate coal out of
business ASAP.<br>
<br>
Our children’s and grandchildren’s lives depend on it.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.juancole.com/2020/12/australian-worthless-retirement.html">https://www.juancole.com/2020/12/australian-worthless-retirement.html</a><br>
- -<br>
<b>Bluewaters coal-fired power station written off as worthless as
renewables rise</b><br>
By Daniel Mercer<br>
Key points:<br>
-- The Bluewaters coal-fired plant in Collie is barely ten years old<br>
-- Its Japanese owners have written it off as worthless<br>
-- The move is being pinned on the rise of renewable energy<br>
The owners of Australia's newest coal-fired power station have
written down the value of the asset to zero, wiping out a $1.2
billion investment in the face of an onslaught of renewable
energy...<br>
- -<br>
"I think this is an absolutely classic example of what we're likely
to see going forward across Australia and around the world," Mr
Nicholas said.<br>
<br>
"In a developed power market, a relatively new — really, very new —
coal-fired power station has been deemed to have effectively no
value.<br>
<br>
"It's a very important example that's flown under the radar."<br>
<br>
In its results presentation, Sumitomo said it "recognised losses on
the investment" in Bluewaters after reassessing what revenues it was
likely to recover from the asset.<br>
- -<br>
Mr Nicholas said it was difficult to know whether Bluewaters'
problems with coal supply from the beleaguered Griffin Coal mine or
increased competition from renewable energy was a bigger reason in
the write-down.<br>
<br>
However, he said "dramatic shift" toward green sources of power such
as rooftop and utility-scale solar and wind farms suggested other
companies with coal-fired plants would have to follow suit...<br>
- -<br>
"In Western Australia, the penetration of rooftop solar is huge,
amongst the highest in the world," Mr Nicholas said.<br>
<br>
"In Australia, the cost of utility-scale renewables is often lower
than the cost of fuel for coal-fired power plants.<br>
<br>
"So, the long-term future for coal-fired power plants is looking
fairly grim and banks are responding to that — they don't want to
finance coal anymore."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-17/bluewaters-coal-fired-power-station-written-off-books/12990532">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-17/bluewaters-coal-fired-power-station-written-off-books/12990532</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
December 18, 2014 </b></font><br>
<p>The New York Times editorial page observes:<br>
"Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday announced a statewide ban on the
extraction of natural gas using a controversial drilling process
called hydraulic fracturing. This was not an easy decision, but it
was the right one. Many geologists and industry leaders believe
that the deep shale formations underneath the state’s southern
tier, known as the Marcellus Shale, contain bountiful supplies of
natural gas. But extracting the gas, the governor concluded,
carried — at least for now — unacceptable risks to the environment
and human health.<br>
<br>
"In making what amounted to his first major decision since his
re-election last month, Mr. Cuomo embraced the conclusion of state
health officials that important health issues remain unresolved
and that it was impossible to declare that hydraulic fracturing is
safe for the environment or human health...<br>
<br>
"Though he did not intend it as such, Mr. Cuomo’s decision sends
an important message to both the industry and the Obama
administration, which is drawing up new rules aimed at ensuring
that wells are carefully drilled, that fugitive methane gases are
captured and that wastewater is disposed of safely. The message
from New York is that not only ordinary citizens but health
officials and state leaders like Mr. Cuomo have serious doubts
about all of these issues — doubts that a strong regulatory regime
might help answer."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/opinion/gov-cuomo-makes-sense-on-fracking.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/opinion/gov-cuomo-makes-sense-on-fracking.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region</a>
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/</p>
/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 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.<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<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>