<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>January 12, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[flood costs add up]<br>
<b>Climate change has cost the U.S. billions of dollars in flood
damage, study finds</b><br>
MON, JAN 11 2021<br>
- Intensifying rainfall fueled by climate change has caused nearly
$75 billion in flood damage in the U.S. in the past three decades,
Stanford University researchers confirmed in a new study.<br>
- The findings shed light on the heightened risk that homeowners,
builders, banks and insurers face as global temperatures continue to
rise.<br>
- Even in states where long-term rainfall hasn’t changed, the
wettest storms have intensified and caused more financial damage as
a result, according to the report...<br>
- -<br>
The losses resulting from worsening extreme rains comprise nearly
one-third of the total financial cost from flooding in the U.S.
between 1988 and 2017, according to the report, which analyzed
climate and socioeconomic data in order to quantify the relationship
between changing historical rainfall trends and historical flood
costs...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/climate-change-has-cost-the-us-billions-of-dollars-in-flood-damage.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/climate-change-has-cost-the-us-billions-of-dollars-in-flood-damage.html</a>
<p>- -</p>
[journal Nature]<br>
<b>Global warming already driving increases in rainfall extremes</b><br>
Precipitation extremes are affecting even arid parts of the world,
study shows.<br>
Jeff Tollefson<br>
Get ready for rain: climate change is already driving an increase in
extremes of rainfall and snowfall across most of the globe, even in
arid regions. And this trend will continue as the world warms,
researchers report today in Nature Climate Change. <br>
<br>
The role of global warming in unusually large rainfall events in
countries from the United Kingdom to China has been hotly debated.
But the latest study shows that climate change is driving an overall
increase in rainfall extremes.<br>
<br>
“In both wet and dry regions, we see these significant and robust
increases in heavy precipitation,” says Markus Donat, a climate
scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, who is the
study’s lead author.<br>
<b>Not So Dry</b><br>
Warm air holds more moisture, and previous research has found that
global warming is already increasing the odds of extreme
precipitation events. But climate models typically differ as to how
that might play out at regional scales. Some models suggest that dry
areas could become drier, but the new findings confirm that this
rule does not hold over land; some areas see declines, but most get
wetter. <br>
<br>
“The paper is convincing and provides some useful insights,” says
Sonia Seneviratne, a climate scientist at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology in Zurich. “What is particularly new in this
article is the demonstration of such a signal for observed changes
in dry regions.”...<br>
- -<br>
These studies bolster predictions from models that more extreme
weather is on the way, while confirming that even arid regions that
may not be accustomed to heavy precipitation could be affected. The
study may not offer any details about what kind of events to prepare
for, but it does put governments on alert, Donat says. “It is
probably a good idea to invest in infrastructure that helps in
dealing with heavier precipitation, in particular if you are not yet
used to those events.” <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508">https://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[a neurotoxin called domoic acid]<br>
<b>Study pins toxic algae blooms at Oregon’s southern border on
climate change</b><br>
By Erik Neumann (Jefferson Public Radio)<br>
Jan. 2, 2021 <br>
New research from West Coast oceanographers provides insight into
the cause of toxic algae blooms that caused shellfish closures and
marine mammal deaths near the Oregon-California border.<br>
<br>
The study, published in the journal Frontiers in Climate, shows
climate change and a 2013-2015 Pacific Ocean heatwave, often called
“the blob,” have together increased the growth of toxic algae off
the coastline from Cape Mendocino, California to Cape Blanco,
Oregon...<br>
- -<br>
Now that the researchers understand the cause of the algal blooms,
Trainer and her colleagues are working with coastal managers to
create harmful algal bloom bulletins to provide early warnings to
the public and allow for more targeted marine fisheries closures,
rather than widespread restrictions.<br>
<br>
“We can provide a short-term forecast, sort of like a weather
forecast, that projects out three to five to seven days what the
risk is for the harmful algae to come to the coast,” Trainer said.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.opb.org/article/2021/01/02/study-pins-toxic-algae-blooms-at-oregons-southern-border-on-climate-change/">https://www.opb.org/article/2021/01/02/study-pins-toxic-algae-blooms-at-oregons-southern-border-on-climate-change/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Important video of Nordhaus]<br>
<b>The economics of climate change by William Nordhaus</b><br>
Jan 28, 2020<br>
UBS Center<br>
What is the optimal policy to address climate change? What are the
costs of climate change? And how will technology and innovation
help?<br>
<br>
In his keynote, Professor William Nordhaus of Yale University
combined the interdisciplinary insights from natural sciences and
economics to address a set of critical questions.<br>
<br>
William Nordhaus has been awarded the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economic
Sciences for ‘integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic
analysis’, jointly with Paul Romer. His pioneering work on climate
economy models greatly advanced understanding of the complex
interactions between climate change and human economic activities.
It provided a sound scientific foundation for climate policy
prescriptions discussed in international fora and adopted in many
industrial countries since the late 20th century.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DG5i8BGaXo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DG5i8BGaXo</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
[Wildfire]<br>
<b>‘Rebuilding Paradise’ Director Ron Howard On Lessons To Learn
From Devastating California Wildfire – </b>Contenders Documentary<br>
By Matthew Carey - January 10, 2021<br>
UPDATED with video: The California town of Paradise was home to
about 26,000 people in November 2018 when a catastrophic wildfire
reduced most of the town to ash. Ron Howard’s National Geographic
documentary Rebuilding Paradise begins with footage of the community
in flames.<br>
<br>
“That opening sequence is far more harrowing than anything I’ve ever
staged as a director of scripted movies,” Howard says during
Deadline’s Contenders Documentary awards-season event. “Suddenly
this beautiful town is destroyed…in a matter of three hours.”<br>
<br>
As the title suggests, Rebuilding Paradise focuses not so much on
the fire but the aftermath—the succession of challenges the
community faced...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://deadline.com/2021/01/rebuilding-paradise-ron-howard-interview-nat-geo-documentary-contenders-1234670676/">https://deadline.com/2021/01/rebuilding-paradise-ron-howard-interview-nat-geo-documentary-contenders-1234670676/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[Top climate scientist]<br>
</p>
<p><b>"Cautious optimism" about fighting climate change: Salon talks
with author of "The New Climate War"</b><br>
Climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann tells Salon that we aren't
doomed — but we need to hold polluters accountable<br>
By MATTHEW ROZSA - JANUARY 11, 2021 <br>
</p>
<p>I have had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Michael E. Mann, a
distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State
University, on many occasions, and for good reason: he's affable,
sincere, and good at explaining things. Indeed, you don't become
one of the world's foremost authorities on climate change without
those kinds of traits. In his career, Mann has repeatedly worked
to break down the science of global warming in comprehensive but
accessible ways. His efforts to raise public awareness have always
struck a balance between emphasizing the gravity of the situation
facing the planet and expressing cautious optimism that, if we
implement the right policies, we can stave off ecological
catastrophe.<br>
<br>
This is the goal of his new book, "The New Climate War: The Fight
To Take Back Our Planet." Mann's thesis is clear: We must fight
the people who lie about the threat of man-made global warming,
whether out of financial self-interest, ideological dogmatism, or
because they have been duped by others. At the same time, we must
also avoid succumbing to the temptation to assume that all is
lost. Instead it is necessary to push for bold policies that will
address climate change in a meaningful way, from a revised version
of the Green New Deal, effective carbon pricing, and making it so
that renewable energy can compete fairly against fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
All of this can — and must — be done, Mann argued. Citizens have
the power to demand change.<br>
<br>
Below is my conversation with Mann. The transcript has been
lightly edited for clarity and context.<br>
<br>
What inspired you to write "The New Climate War"?<br>
<br>
It's the fact that we see this nefarious, and in many ways more
insidious, attack on climate action today, even as the impacts of
climate change become so obvious to the person on the street that
it's not credible to deny that it happened. The same powerful
vested interests in the fossil fuel industry and those who do
their bidding, I call them being activists because their agenda is
one of climate inaction. For decades they've been denying that
climate change is real, attacking the science, trying to undermine
public understanding of the problems. And now that that's really
not possible, they have turned to a whole new set of tactics in
their efforts to block progress on climate. And that's really what
the book is about. I felt it was important to talk about that as
one who had sort of been in the cross hairs of climate change
deniers for decades and witnessed firsthand their tactics and how
they've evolved, sort of as a warning to people. <br>
<br>
The battle isn't won yet. The forces of inaction are no longer
denying the basic science, but they're doing all these other
things to prevent action. And that's what the book is about.
[There is] deflection of attention from the needed policies and
systemic changes to individual behavior — as if it's just about us
and our diet and how we travel, and the way to solve the climate
problem is for us to just be better people. Of course, individual
action is important. We should all do things that serve to
decrease our environmental footprint and often they make us
healthier. They save us money. There are lots of good reasons to
do them, but they're no substitute for the needed policies at the
very top, the massive decarbonization of our economy, which is
necessary.<br>
<br>
Now also by focusing attention on individual behavior, they get us
fighting with each other, shaming people, pointing fingers at each
other about their carbon impurity, and that divides the community.
So they get climate advocates arguing with each other. That means
there is no longer a unified voice calling for action. There is
doom and despair-mongering, an attempt to convince some that it's
too late to do anything about it anyway, so why even bother?
Unfortunately a lot of climate advocates of good intentions and of
goodwill have been hoodwinked and taken in and weaponized in that
effort to despirit them to the point of disengagement, so they're
no longer on the frontlines demanding action. There is also the
promotion of false solutions like geoengineering or carbon
capture, basically anything but solving this problem at its
source, which is getting off fossil fuels, because that's
inconvenient to the fossil fuel industry. So they'd rather have
the discussion of solutions focus on all these distracting, fake
solution to the problem.<br>
<br>
I've interviewed you many times before. I've read your book. I've
read other things you've written. The science that you present is
incontrovertible. There really is no debate among scholars as to
whether or not climate change is real or as to whether or not we
need to take very bold steps in order to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and save the planet. The problem is the people who argue
against you aren't doing so in good faith. This isn't a situation
where you have two sides that are looking at the same information
and just happen to draw different conclusions. This is a situation
in which one side has an ulterior motive and is lying to millions,
if not billions, of people about the truth, because of that
motive. How do you address that? I almost feel like on some level,
this isn't a climate change issue. This is a psychological issue.
How do you get people who are being hoodwinked by bad faith
arguments to realize that?<br>
<br>
It's a great question. And that is something I try to accomplish
in the book. The first challenge is to just get people to
recognize it. 'Look, they're pulling the wool over your eyes.
They're manipulating you.' And I use, for example, the classic
tale now of the 'Crying Indian' public service announcement from
the early 1970s that we all thought was empowering about cleaning
up our environment. But it turns out we ultimately learned that it
was a propaganda campaign hatched on Madison Avenue by Coca-Cola
and the beverage industry to defeat bottle bills, to focus on
individual behavior. 'We just have to pick up those bottles and
cans ourselves or unleash the Boy Scouts to clean up the bottles
and cans. We don't need a deposit. We don't need a systemic
solution to this problem.'<br>
<br>
So in telling some of those stories, my hope is that sort of this
storytelling approach to describing the problem will really help
people understand what is happening and how they're being
manipulated. Because that's really ultimately the solution — to
recognize these tactics, to push back against them, to make sure
other people are aware of them, and to not be distracted from the
matter at hand, from the prize, which is climate action.<br>
<br>
And we're now, literally today, we've seen political developments
— not the mob we've seen in the Capitol — but the election of two
Democrats now turning over the Senate to Democratic hands means
there's a real opportunity for meaningful policy progress. We've
got a president who's on board, we've got a Congress controlled by
Democrats who are on board. There's a real opportunity now for
meaningful climate action. Let's not be distracted or fooled.
Let's focus on the matter at hand, which is making progress.<br>
<br>
I completely agree, but I actually do want to focus for a moment
on the mob in Washington, because here is the thing: I would
assume that people would get that passionately angry about the
fact that a handful of wealthy people are emitting all of these
greenhouse gasses, and are pushing for policies that make it
harder for us to restrict greenhouse gas emissions, and that is
gradually destroying the planet. My nephew is going to grow up in
a world that is very different from the one that I grew up in as a
result. Do you think that would be the sort of thing that makes
people angry, and instead they're angry because President Donald
Trump isn't allowed to steal an election?<br>
<br>
It's a mnemonic, not a precise, scientific model, but sort of the
reptilian brain and the way that Republicans are particularly
effective at tapping into the circuitry of the reptilian parts of
the human brain, preying on all of our worst instincts —
selfishness, prejudice, all of that — to weaponize this mob that
we're watching on television right now to do their bidding for
them. And just as you alluded to earlier, Matt, the irony being
that they are mobilizing, weaponizing, this army rabble to engage
in actions that are completely detrimental to their own interests,
in the present and ultimately down the road. I like to think that
even these mob protesters in DC care about their children, they
care about their grandchildren. They want a better life for them.<br>
<br>
And so in a sense, they've been manipulated. They are victims of a
misinformation campaign. It's a disinformation campaign, enticed
by red meat thrown out by Republican operatives to prey on their
worst instincts. Sadly in many cases they are beyond help at this
point, and we have to fight on knowing that for many cases they're
not to be on the right side of this issue, but we don't need them.
They're a fringe, they're not a majority. We can solve this
problem without them. We just can't allow them to get in the way.<br>
<br>
With the favorable change in winds and in Washington DC, we'll see
what happens. I think that we're going to move away from this over
the next couple of years. It will be rocky. It won't be easy, but
I see the reason for cautious optimism that we're steering the
ship in a different direction now.<br>
<br>
I do want to have a bit of a lighter note. I noticed that you have
blurbs on the back of your book jacket from Leonardo DiCaprio, Don
Cheadle, Greta Thunberg and Al Gore. Was that cool, being able to
get them to read your book and offer this commentary?<br>
<br>
Well, as you know, I hang out with them at cocktail parties most
of the time, and so it was easy to! I was just kidding. It
obviously feels great to be able to engage opinion leaders, people
who have a reach as well beyond your own. and I very much support
forging alliances with people in the entertainment and in media
who have an opportunity to really get that message out, who can
reach a much larger audience than you can. And many of these folks
are sort of personal heroes of mine — Thunberg, Leo. You know, he
could have easily spent his life doing nothing but exploiting the
excesses of wealth and fame that he's achieved, but instead he
takes a beating from fossil fuel interests and climate change
deniers because he's focused on actually trying to do something
about this and other problems. <br>
<br>
So I have a lot of respect for the folks that you mentioned. It
makes it very meaningful when obviously when they have nice things
to say about the books. I see this really as an ecosystem of
sorts, and scientists and science communicators play a role, and
opinion leaders and celebrities play a role. And when we can sort
of pool our resources and work together, it just makes it that
much easier to achieve the changes that we need to see. It was
very gratifying to me, in short.<br>
<br>
We were talking about how celebrities have this platform in which
they can draw attention to these important issues. I remember
growing up and all I would hear from conservatives is, "Oh my God,
if I hear one more liberal celebrity preach..." and then they
elect a president whose resume is literally nothing but being a
celebrity. No political, no military experience whatsoever.
Leonardo DiCaprio has a comparable resume in terms of if he wanted
to run for president. And he has better policy ideas!<br>
<br>
Leo actually has some brains! I've met him and talked with him and
he's a sharp, intelligent, thoughtful, good, honest person.
Everything you would want actually in a politician. You're so
right, and what it exposes is just the fundamental hypocrisy of
sort of the right-wing noise machine that we've seen that in
spades during the Trump years, engaging in extreme examples of the
very vices they like to attribute to progressives. Part of it is
the diversionary. It's projection. They're masters. Trump is a
master of projection and Republicans become masters of projection.<br>
<br>
That's how they've been able to manipulate this rabble into
supporting an agenda, the right-wing conservative profits agenda
that goes against their own interests. That can only happen when
you're able to sort of master the arts of projection and
deflection. And that's the reality. And it's why I spend some time
talking about that part of it. For example, this idea of getting
us fighting with each other about individual behavior, it divides
us, but also deflects attention from the needed causes toward
changes in individual behavior. But another aspect of that, it's a
great way to cynically, to try to target celebrities like Leo
DiCaprio and thereby sort of reduce their effectiveness as
spokespeople by accusing them of hypocrisy, as a great way to
discredit them and their message. And it's almost always based on
distortion and outright fabrication...</p>
MATTHEW ROZSA<br>
Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History
from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in
History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz
and MSNBC.<br>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.salon.com/2021/01/10/cautious-optimism-about-fighting-climate-change-salon-talks-with-author-of-the-new-climate-war/">https://www.salon.com/2021/01/10/cautious-optimism-about-fighting-climate-change-salon-talks-with-author-of-the-new-climate-war/</a><br>
</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 -
January 12, 2000 </b></font><br>
The National Academy of Sciences issues a report indicating that
"strong evidence exists to show that the warming of the Earth's
surface is 'undoubtedly real,' and that surface temperatures in the
past two decades have risen at a rate substantially greater than
average for the past 100 years."<br>
<blockquote>WASHINGTON -- Despite differences in temperature data,
strong evidence exists to show that the warming of the Earth's
surface is "undoubtedly real," and that surface temperatures in
the past two decades have risen at a rate substantially greater
than average for the past 100 years, says a new report by the
National Research Council of the National Academies.<br>
<br>
The report examines the apparent conflict between surface
temperature and upper-air temperature, which has led to the
controversy over whether global warming is actually occurring. The
Earth's surface temperature has risen about 0.4 to 0.8 degrees
Celsius - or 0.7 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the last century,
the report says. But data collected by satellites and
balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any
warming of the low- to mid-troposphere - the atmospheric layer
extending up to about 5 miles from the Earth's surface. Climate
models generally predict that temperatures should increase in the
upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of
greenhouse gases are causing the warming.<br>
<br>
"The differences between the surface and upper-air trends in no
way invalidates the conclusion that the Earth's temperature is
rising," said John M. Wallace, chair of the panel that wrote the
report and professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of
Washington in Seattle. "But the rapid increase in the Earth's
surface temperature over the past 20 years is not necessarily
representative of how the atmosphere is responding to long-term,
human-induced changes, such as increasing amounts of carbon
dioxide and other 'greenhouse' gases. The nations of the world
should develop an improved climate monitoring system to resolve
uncertainties in the data and provide policy-makers with the best
available information."<br>
<br>
While a combination of human activities and natural causes has
contributed to rising surface temperatures, other human and
natural forces may actually have cooled the upper atmosphere. For
example, natural events such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in
1991 tended to decrease atmospheric temperature for several years.
And burning coal and oil for energy produces tiny aerosol
particles in the atmosphere that can have a cooling effect.
Upper-air temperatures also can be reduced by depletion of ozone
in the stratosphere caused by chlorofluorocarbons and other
chemicals being emitted into the atmosphere. When these variables
are accounted for in atmospheric models, satellite and balloon
data more closely align with surface-temperature observations.<br>
<br>
Because global warming is a long-term process that can be masked
by year-to-year climate variability, warming trends are most
clearly revealed by surface temperature measurements - which have
been recorded daily at hundreds of locations for more than a
century. These data indicate that the Earth is, in fact, warming,
the panel said. Satellites have been collecting data from the
upper atmosphere for only about 20 years.<br>
<br>
The differences between surface temperature and upper-air
temperature records also may be partially attributed to
uncertainties in temperature measurements, the panel said. A
better climate monitoring system is needed to ensure continuity
and quality in data collection. Measurements should include not
only temperature and wind, but also ozone, water vapor, clouds,
and aerosols. Scientists need to perform a more comprehensive
analysis of the uncertainties in surface, balloon, and satellite
temperature data. Natural as well as human-induced changes should
be accounted for in model simulations of atmospheric temperature
variability.<br>
<br>
Data also need to be accessible in a form that enables a number of
different research groups to use and improve them, the report
says. To ensure access, data should be available in electronic
databases to the entire scientific community.<br>
<br>
The study was funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Aluminum Corporation of America. The
National Research Council is the principal operating agency of the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides
science advice under a congressional charter.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010726224601/http://clinton5.nara.gov/Initiatives/Climate/sciences.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20010726224601/http://clinton5.nara.gov/Initiatives/Climate/sciences.html</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 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>