<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 26, 2020</b></font></i> <br>
</p>
[2 min video - it changes]<br>
<b>Andrea Dutton PhD: Sea Level Rise - How Fast?</b><br>
Dec 25, 2020<br>
greenmanbucket<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flHkeuOUSyc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flHkeuOUSyc</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[but the pre-threshold is now]<br>
<b>WE’LL CROSS THE GLOBAL WARMING THRESHOLD IN 6-21 YEARS</b><br>
DECEMBER 23RD, 2020<br>
POSTED BY SHIRLEY CARDENAS-MCGILL<br>
The threshold for dangerous global warming will likely be crossed
between 2027 and 2042, research indicates.<br>
<br>
That’s a much narrower window than the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s estimate of between now and 2052.<br>
<br>
In a study published in Climate Dynamics, researchers introduce a
new and more precise way to project the Earth’s temperature. Based
on historical data, it considerably reduces uncertainties compared
to previous approaches.<br>
<br>
Scientists have been making projections of future global warming
using climate models for decades. These models play an important
role in understanding the Earth’s climate and how it will likely
change. But how accurate are they?<br>
<br>
Climate models are mathematical simulations of different factors
that interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as the atmosphere,
ocean, ice, land surface, and the sun. While they are based on the
best understanding of the Earth’s systems available, when it comes
to forecasting the future, uncertainties remain.<br>
<br>
CLIMATE UNCERTAINTY<br>
“Climate skeptics have argued that global warming projections are
unreliable because they depend on faulty supercomputer models.
While these criticisms are unwarranted, they underscore the need
for independent and different approaches to predicting future
warming,” says coauthor Bruno Tremblay, a professor in the
department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at McGill
University.<br>
<br>
Until now, wide ranges in overall temperature projections have
made it difficult to pinpoint outcomes in different mitigation
scenarios. For instance, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations are
doubled, the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), predict a very
likely global average temperature increase between 1.9 and 4.5
degrees C—a vast range covering moderate climate changes on the
lower end, and catastrophic ones on the other.<br>
<br>
“Our new approach to projecting the Earth’s temperature is based
on historical climate data, rather than the theoretical
relationships that are imperfectly captured by the GCMs. Our
approach allows climate sensitivity and its uncertainty to be
estimated from direct observations with few assumptions,” says
coauthor Raphaël Hébert of the Alfred-Wegener-Institut in Potsdam,
Germany.<br>
<br>
GLOBAL WARMING THRESHOLD<br>
In the study, the researchers introduce the new Scaling Climate
Response Function (SCRF) model to project the Earth’s temperature
until 2100. Grounded in historical data, it reduces prediction
uncertainties by about half, compared to the approach currently
used by the IPCC.<br>
<br>
In analyzing the results, the researchers found that we’ll likely
cross threshold for dangerous warming (+1.5 C) between 2027 and
2042. This is a much narrower window than GCMs estimates of
between now and 2052. On average, the researchers also found that
expected warming was a little lower, by about 10 to 15%. They also
find, however, that the “very likely warming ranges” of the SCRF
were within those of the GCMs, giving the latter support.<br>
<br>
“Now that governments have finally decided to act on climate
change, we must avoid situations where leaders can claim that even
the weakest policies can avert dangerous consequences,” says
coauthor Shaun Lovejoy, a professor in the physics department at
McGill University. “With our new climate model and its next
generation improvements, there’s less wiggle room.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.futurity.org/global-warming-threshold-2492152-2/">https://www.futurity.org/global-warming-threshold-2492152-2/</a><br>
</p>
<p>- -</p>
[original study]<br>
<b>An observation-based scaling model for climate sensitivity
estimates and global projections to 2100</b><br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
We directly exploit the stochasticity of the internal variability,
and the linearity of the forced response to make global temperature
projections based on historical data and a Green’s function, or
Climate Response Function (CRF). To make the problem tractable, we
take advantage of the temporal scaling symmetry to define a scaling
CRF characterized by the scaling exponent H, which controls the
long-range memory of the climate, i.e. how fast the system tends
toward a steady-state, and an inner scale τ≈2 years below which
the higher-frequency response is smoothed out. An aerosol scaling
factor and a non-linear volcanic damping exponent were introduced to
account for the large uncertainty in these forcings. We estimate the
model and forcing parameters by Bayesian inference which allows us
to analytically calculate the transient climate response and the
equilibrium climate sensitivity as: 1.7+0.3−0.2 K and 2.4+1.3−0.6
K respectively (likely range). Projections to 2100 according to the
RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios yield warmings with respect to
1880–1910 of: 1.5+0.4−0.2K, 2.3+0.7−0.5 K and 4.2+1.3−0.9 K. These
projection estimates are lower than the ones based on a Coupled
Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 multi-model ensemble; more
importantly, their uncertainties are smaller and only depend on
historical temperature and forcing series. The key uncertainty is
due to aerosol forcings; we find a modern (2005) forcing value of
[−1.0,−0.3]Wm−2 (90 % confidence interval) with median at −0.7Wm−2.
Projecting to 2100, we find that to keep the warming below 1.5 K,
future emissions must undergo cuts similar to RCP 2.6 for which the
probability to remain under 1.5 K is 48 %. RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5-like
futures overshoot with very high probability.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05521-x">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05521-x</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[opinion Keep looking]<br>
Kate Aronoff - December 24, 2020<br>
<b>Carbon Capture Is Not a Climate Savior</b><br>
The promise of negative emissions is baked into most “net zero”
pledges. But putting that into practice is easier said than done...<br>
- -<br>
Talking up carbon capture is good for fossil fuel companies—it makes
the next few decades look profitable for them. Companies from
ExxonMobil to Shell to Occidental Petroleum have all boasted about
investments in carbon capture while continuing to double down on
their core business model of finding and digging up as much oil and
gas as possible. Whether they’re making meaningful investments in
carbon capture is a different matter entirely. Exxon recently nixed
its $1 billion investment to store carbon under a gas operation it
owns in Wyoming. It moved ahead with a $9 billion expansion of its
crude oil drilling operations off the coast of Guyana. All the
while, Exxon, like its competitors, continues to advertise its token
investments in carbon capture as proof that they’ve enlisted in good
faith in the climate fight, despite all evidence to the contrary...<br>
- -<br>
The approach is eerily reminiscent of the climate denial playbook.
When companies like Exxon and General Motors funded climate denial,
the effect wasn’t to convince the world that more carbon dioxide is
a good thing or that the earth just naturally gets really hot
sometimes, but it was to muddy the waters, casting enough doubt on
the scientific consensus to stymie policymaking that might threaten
their profits. Now, such companies’ lavish advertising budgets are
being used to spread a new kind of doubt in the face of a new
consensus about how to deal with that problem: Phase out fossil fuel
use as quickly as possible while phasing in renewables. Negative
emissions are one among several vague talking points being thrown
out by polluters to suggest that isn’t necessary. What if we could
suck up a whole lot of carbon dioxide at some point? What if the
timeline for decarbonization could be pushed back as a result? The
jury’s still out on how much carbon dioxide we can take out of the
atmosphere after 2050, they argue. And renewables can’t yet meet the
world’s energy needs. So it’s probably safest to let us keep making
the earth hotter while our best researchers work to find a
technological fix to this problem that’s just around the corner. <br>
<br>
Here’s the sticky bit: Negative emissions are needed if the world’s
governments are indeed serious about keeping warming to “well below”
2 degrees Celsius, per the text of the Paris Agreement. Anything
higher than 1.5 degrees may well amount to a death sentence for
potentially millions across the global south, and the lack of
zero-carbon alternatives on offer in big sectors of the economy mean
it’d be all too possible to sail past that threshold in the decades
to come. Carbon capture is necessary. But fossil fuel executives are
the last people who should get to define how much of it’s needed,
what it should look like, and who benefits...<br>
- -<br>
Carbon capture, or negative emissions, can mean many different
things. So-called “natural climate solutions” involve things like
tree planting, grassland and wetland restoration, or
(controversially) agriculture-based soil sequestration. The Green
New Deal resolution introduced to Congress last year backed this
approach, citing the need for “removing greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems
through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage,
such as land preservation and afforestation.” But there are other
approaches, too. Among the most frequently invoked in climate
modeling is Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage, or BECCS.
This relies on harvesting new carbon-sucking crops like switchgrass
for fuel, then capturing the resulting emissions through machines
that filter out emissions from where the power is generated. And in
direct air capture, machines that look like air conditioners suck
carbon down from the sky and inject it into rock formations or soft
drinks, among other uses... <br>
- -<br>
“Carbon removal in particular is one of the most direct forms of
climate reparations,” he added. “Global north countries taking on
carbon removal is obviously not exhaustive of their responsibilities
from a justice perspective, but in a lot of ways is the most direct
thing they can do conceptually speaking.” A more just approach would
be for global north countries to fund carbon removal and site much
of it in their own backyards...<br>
- -<br>
But while less land-use intensive, direct-air capture technologies
have their own feasibility and affordability issues. For one, they
depend on an enormous amount of electricity; if the grid powering
DAC is still carbon-intensive, its carbon savings look a lot more
ambiguous. And if such technologies are patented by private
companies, onerous intellectual property statutes could make it
virtually impossible for them to proliferate widely, particularly to
low- and middle-income countries that lack the capacity to pay the
rents that might be demanded by patent holders. Wealthy countries’
recent refusals to waive intellectual property rights for publicly
funded Covid-19 vaccines, Táíwò notes, could offer a preview for how
IP rules may stymie a new generation of life-saving technologies. <br>
<br>
True negative emissions—mostly, capturing carbon and keeping it
buried—aren’t neatly compatible with the profit motive. Even if
captured carbon is used to make building materials, acknowledging
that negative emissions are critical to ward off climate catastrophe
means making sure that installing them quickly doesn’t depend on
their ability to turn a profit. Lavishing private companies with
subsidies and tax incentives, that is, will only go so far. Instead,
we might need to treat carbon like sewage, as science fiction writer
Kim Stanley Robinson recently proposed: an essential but basically
boring public service that nobody expects to get rich off of unless
there’s something illicit happening. <br>
<br>
As fossil fuel companies look to capture the field of captured
carbon with schemes for EOR and pernicious academic funding, there’s
a dire need for democratic governance models for carbon dioxide
removal that prioritize equity and emissions reductions over
shareholders. Environmental sociologist Holly Jean Buck argues that
carbon capture could fall under the mandate of nationalized fossil
fuel companies, which could keep union workers on the payroll as
they build out the vast amount of infrastructure needed to store
carbon. As the One Earth paper coauthored by Buck also notes, “We
might need to stretch our imaginations to envision economic and
political futures in which CDR fits into the world we want rather
than delaying or undermining it.”<br>
<br>
The proliferation of net-zero plans in 2020 is clearly good news
insofar as it indicates that governments are now taking the climate
crisis more seriously. But they also belie the need for concrete
plans to reduce emissions much sooner. “The scenarios are
performative in a sense that they show us one way but not all the
ways to 1.5 or 2 degrees,” Glen Peters explained. Earlier climate
models, he said, were designed around stabilizing atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide, say around 450 or 550 parts per
million. “But many models couldn’t get to this,” he said. “So what
they did is change that target to only apply in 2100, so you could
go over and come back down. All the models could do this if they
used BECCS.” Such models can be useful reference points but don’t
need to dictate what’s possible. <br>
If stabilizing temperatures at “well below” 2 degrees is the goal,
the task for the next decade at least is straightforward: electrify
everything, build lots of renewables, and rapidly phase out fossil
fuels. Federal research into how to capture carbon at scale is a
necessary complement to reducing the amount of work those processes
will have to do. But carbon capture will always be a
complement—never a substitute.<br>
Kate Aronoff @KateAronoff<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://newrepublic.com/article/160754/carbon-capture-not-climate-savior">https://newrepublic.com/article/160754/carbon-capture-not-climate-savior</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[recommendations]<br>
<b>The Center for Media and Democracy, </b>a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
non-profit, is a nationally recognized watchdog group that has been
researching and exposing the undue influence of powerful special
interests on our democracy for 25 years. Our in-depth, award-winning
investigations and exposés have pulled the curtain back on numerous
cases of public corruption and corporate manipulation of public
policy, elections, and the media, and our publicly available
research has made CMD a go-to source for thousands of journalists,
educators, reform groups, and citizen activists who are working to
build a more sustainable future and more just society.<br>
<br>
CMD’s investigations have ignited national conversations on money in
politics and the distortion of public policy and democracy at every
level of government and in every region of the country. We believe
in the public’s right to know how government operates, how powerful
interests influence our democracy, and the true motivations for
official actions. To bring that influence to light, CMD files
hundreds of freedom of information requests every year and takes
legal action to both obtain public records and bring violations of
anti-corruption laws to the attention of regulators. CMD is
reader-supported. Please make your tax-deductible gift today. Thank
you!<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://centerformediaanddemocracy.salsalabs.org/donate/index.html">https://centerformediaanddemocracy.salsalabs.org/donate/index.html</a><br>
- - <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://action.mediamatters.org/secure/donate?ms=eoy2020">https://action.mediamatters.org/secure/donate?ms=eoy2020</a><br>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[Digging back into the internet news archive]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming -
December 26, 2015 </b></font><br>
<p>The New York Times reports:<br>
"Oil money no longer pays the bills [in Alaska].<br>
<br>
"The governor, facing a profound fiscal crisis, has proposed the
imposition of a personal income tax for the first time in 35
years. State lawmakers, who recently moved into a palatial new
office building here, where they work when not toiling in the
far-off Capitol in Juneau, are now seeking less costly digs.<br>
<br>
"And a state budget that was a point of Alaskan pride — and envy
from around the nation — lies in tatters as revenue that flowed
from selling crude oil from Prudhoe Bay over the past four decades
has been swept away.<br>
<br>
"With oil prices down along with oil production, the state is
facing an Alaska-size shortfall: Two-thirds of the revenue needed
to cover this year’s $5.2 billion state budget cannot be
collected.<br>
<br>
"Many Alaskans are not old enough to recall times this bad. This
is the nation’s least-taxed state, where oil royalties and energy
taxes once paid for 90 percent of state functions. Oil money was
so plentiful that residents received annual dividend checks from a
state savings fund that could total more than $8,000 for a family
of four — arriving each autumn, as predictable as the first
snowfall.<br>
<br>
"Kevin Meyer, president of the Alaska Senate, spoke to members of
the Resource Development Council about the budget. Mr. Meyer, a
Republican who is also an employee of the oil giant
ConocoPhillips, said he thought deeper cuts were still necessary.
<br>
<br>
"Gov. Bill Walker, an independent, is proposing to scale back
those dividends as he seeks to get Alaska back on a stable
financial footing with less dependence on oil. 'It will move us
back to where we were before,' he said in an interview. 'We can do
it.'<br>
<br>
"Every resource-dependent corner of the globe is in stress these
days as commodity prices from copper to soybeans have collapsed to
multiyear lows. States like Texas and Louisiana are also grappling
with the oil downturn, but Alaska’s situation is unique."<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/us/as-oil-money-melts-alaska-mulls-first-income-tax-in-35-years.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/us/as-oil-money-melts-alaska-mulls-first-income-tax-in-35-years.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 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>