<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 15, 2021</b></font></i> <br>
</p>
[Paper posted]<br>
<b>Global Temperature in 2020</b><br>
14 January 2021<br>
James Hansena, Makiko Satoa, Reto Ruedyb,c, Gavin Schmidtc,<br>
Ken Lob,c, Michael Hendricksonb,c<br>
Abstract. Global surface temperature in 2020 was in a virtual
dead-heat with 2016 for warmest year in the period of instrumental
data in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.
The rate of global warming has accelerated in the past several
years. The 2020 global temperature was +1.3°C (~2.3°F) warmer than
in the 1880-1920 base period; global temperature in that base period
is a reasonable estimate of ‘pre-industrial’ temperature. The six
warmest years in the GISS record all occur in the past six years,
and the 10 warmest years are all in the 21st century. Growth rates
of the greenhouse gases driving global warming are increasing, not
declining.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/20210114_Temperature2020.pdf">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2021/20210114_Temperature2020.pdf</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
[audio of climate scientists including Gavin Schmidt]<br>
<b>2019 Was The 2nd-Hottest Year On Record, According To NASA And
NOAA</b><br>
SCHMIDT: The warming up until now, you know, since the 1970s, has
been quite close to linear. If you kind of extrapolate that forward,
you would imagine that we would cross 1.5 in around 2035. But of
course, that depends on what we do with emissions.<br>
<br>
HERSHER: Human emissions of greenhouse gases are the overwhelming
driver of global warming. And right now, global emissions are
rising. The U.S. has admitted the most total CO2 of any country. The
data released today also illustrate how different regions are being
affected. The Arctic is warming three times faster than the rest of
the planet. Hot ocean water helped power dangerous cyclones and
disrupted fisheries. In the continental U.S., rain patterns are
changing. Deke Arndt works on forecasting at NOAA. He says hotter
temperatures are making droughts more severe.<br>
<br>
DEKE ARNDT: A warmer atmosphere is a thirstier atmosphere.<br>
<br>
HERSHER: Sucking up moisture and then dumping rain all at once.<br>
<br>
ARNDT: We're seeing the largest events getting larger.<br>
<br>
HERSHER: That means more flood risk. For example, in 2019, big
rainfall events drove record-breaking floods along the Mississippi
River and its tributaries. And as the Earth keeps getting hotter,
all of these trends will keep getting more pronounced.<br>
<br>
Rebecca Hersher, NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR,<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.kpcw.org/post/2019-was-2nd-hottest-year-record-according-nasa-and-noaa#stream/0">https://www.kpcw.org/post/2019-was-2nd-hottest-year-record-according-nasa-and-noaa#stream/0</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
[research recently published ]<br>
Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Daniel T. Blumstein, Paul Ehrlich,,,<br>
<b>Worried about Earth’s future? Well, the outlook is worse than
even scientists can grasp</b><br>
January 13, 2021 <br>
<br>
Anyone with even a passing interest in the global environment knows
all is not well. But just how bad is the situation? Our new paper
shows the outlook for life on Earth is more dire than is generally
understood.<br>
<br>
The research published today reviews more than 150 studies to
produce a stark summary of the state of the natural world. We
outline the likely future trends in biodiversity decline, mass
extinction, climate disruption and planetary toxification. We
clarify the gravity of the human predicament and provide a timely
snapshot of the crises that must be addressed now.<br>
<br>
The problems, all tied to human consumption and population growth,
will almost certainly worsen over coming decades. The damage will be
felt for centuries and threatens the survival of all species,
including our own.<br>
<br>
Our paper was authored by 17 leading scientists, including those
from Flinders University, Stanford University and the University of
California, Los Angeles. Our message might not be popular, and
indeed is frightening. But scientists must be candid and accurate if
humanity is to understand the enormity of the challenges we face...<br>
- -<br>
<b>Getting to grips with the problem</b><br>
First, we reviewed the extent to which experts grasp the scale of
the threats to the biosphere and its lifeforms, including humanity.
Alarmingly, the research shows future environmental conditions will
be far more dangerous than experts currently believe.<br>
<br>
This is largely because academics tend to specialise in one
discipline, which means they’re in many cases unfamiliar with the
complex system in which planetary-scale problems — and their
potential solutions — exist.<br>
<br>
What’s more, positive change can be impeded by governments rejecting
or ignoring scientific advice, and ignorance of human behaviour by
both technical experts and policymakers.<br>
<br>
More broadly, the human optimism bias – thinking bad things are more
likely to befall others than yourself – means many people
underestimate the environmental crisis.<br>
<br>
<b>Numbers don’t lie</b><br>
Our research also reviewed the current state of the global
environment. While the problems are too numerous to cover in full
here, they include:<br>
<blockquote>-- a halving of vegetation biomass since the
agricultural revolution around 11,000 years ago. Overall, humans
have altered almost two-thirds of Earth’s land surface<br>
<br>
-- About 1,300 documented species extinctions over the past 500
years, with many more unrecorded. More broadly, population sizes
of animal species have declined by more than two-thirds over the
last 50 years, suggesting more extinctions are imminent<br>
<br>
-- about one million plant and animal species globally threatened
with extinction. The combined mass of wild mammals today is less
than one-quarter the mass before humans started colonising the
planet. Insects are also disappearing rapidly in many regions<br>
<br>
--85% of the global wetland area lost in 300 years, and more than
65% of the oceans compromised to some extent by humans<br>
<br>
-- a halving of live coral cover on reefs in less than 200 years
and a decrease in seagrass extent by 10% per decade over the last
century. About 40% of kelp forests have declined in abundance, and
the number of large predatory fishes is fewer than 30% of that a
century ago.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>A bad situation only getting worse</b><br>
The human population has reached 7.8 billion – double what it was in
1970 – and is set to reach about 10 billion by 2050. More people
equals more food insecurity, soil degradation, plastic pollution and
biodiversity loss.<br>
<br>
High population densities make pandemics more likely. They also
drive overcrowding, unemployment, housing shortages and
deteriorating infrastructure, and can spark conflicts leading to
insurrections, terrorism, and war.<br>
<br>
Essentially, humans have created an ecological Ponzi scheme.
Consumption, as a percentage of Earth’s capacity to regenerate
itself, has grown from 73% in 1960 to more than 170% today.<br>
<br>
High-consuming countries like Australia, Canada and the US use
multiple units of fossil-fuel energy to produce one energy unit of
food. Energy consumption will therefore increase in the near future,
especially as the global middle class grows.<br>
<br>
Then there’s climate change. Humanity has already exceeded global
warming of 1°C this century, and will almost assuredly exceed 1.5 °C
between 2030 and 2052. Even if all nations party to the Paris
Agreement ratify their commitments, warming would still reach
between 2.6°C and 3.1°C by 2100.<br>
<b>The danger of political impotence</b><br>
Our paper found global policymaking falls far short of addressing
these existential threats. Securing Earth’s future requires prudent,
long-term decisions. However this is impeded by short-term
interests, and an economic system that concentrates wealth among a
few individuals.<br>
<br>
Right-wing populist leaders with anti-environment agendas are on the
rise, and in many countries, environmental protest groups have been
labelled “terrorists”. Environmentalism has become weaponised as a
political ideology, rather than properly viewed as a universal mode
of self-preservation.<br>
<br>
Financed disinformation campaigns against climate action and forest
protection, for example, protect short-term profits and claim
meaningful environmental action is too costly – while ignoring the
broader cost of not acting. By and large, it appears unlikely
business investments will shift at sufficient scale to avoid
environmental catastrophe.<br>
<br>
<b>Changing course</b><br>
Fundamental change is required to avoid this ghastly future.
Specifically, we and many others suggest:<br>
<blockquote>-- abolishing the goal of perpetual economic growth<br>
-- revealing the true cost of products and activities by forcing
those who damage the environment to pay for its restoration, such
as through carbon pricing<br>
-- rapidly eliminating fossil fuels<br>
-- regulating markets by curtailing monopolisation and limiting
undue corporate influence on policy<br>
-- reigning in corporate lobbying of political representatives<br>
-- educating and empowering women across the globe, including
giving them control over family planning.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>Don’t look away</b><br>
Many organisations and individuals are devoted to achieving these
aims. However their messages have not sufficiently penetrated the
policy, economic, political and academic realms to make much
difference.<br>
<br>
Failing to acknowledge the magnitude and gravity of problems facing
humanity is not just naïve, it’s dangerous. And science has a big
role to play here.<br>
<br>
Scientists must not sugarcoat the overwhelming challenges ahead.
Instead, they should tell it like it is. Anything else is at best
misleading, and at worst potentially lethal for the human
enterprise.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theconversation.com/worried-about-earths-future-well-the-outlook-is-worse-than-even-scientists-can-grasp-153091">https://theconversation.com/worried-about-earths-future-well-the-outlook-is-worse-than-even-scientists-can-grasp-153091</a>
<p>- -</p>
[Sourced - Frontiers in Conservation Science]<br>
PERSPECTIVE ARTICLE<br>
Front. Conserv. Sci., 13 January 2021 |
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419">https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419</a><br>
<b>Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future</b><br>
Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Paul R. Ehrlich, Andrew Beattie, Gerardo
Ceballos, Eileen Crist, Joan Diamond, Rodolfo Dirzo, Anne H.
Ehrlich, John Harte, Mary Ellen Harte, Graham Pyke, Peter H. Raven,
William J. Ripple, Frédérik Saltré, Christine Turnbull, Mathis
Wackernagel and Daniel T. Blumstein<br>
<br>
We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have
received little attention and require urgent action. First, we
review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far
more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to
the biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so
great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts.
Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is
prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such
action. Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary
responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately
when engaging with government, business, and the public. We
especially draw attention to the lack of appreciation of the
enormous challenges to creating a sustainable future. The added
stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely
diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of ecosystem
services on which society depends. The science underlying these
issues is strong, but awareness is weak. Without fully appreciating
and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the
solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest
sustainability goals.<br>
<b>Introduction</b><br>
Humanity is causing a rapid loss of biodiversity and, with it,
Earth's ability to support complex life. But the mainstream is
having difficulty grasping the magnitude of this loss, despite the
steady erosion of the fabric of human civilization (Ceballos et al.,
2015; IPBES, 2019; Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020; WWF,
2020). While suggested solutions abound (Díaz et al., 2019), the
current scale of their implementation does not match the relentless
progression of biodiversity loss (Cumming et al., 2006) and other
existential threats tied to the continuous expansion of the human
enterprise (Rees, 2020). Time delays between ecological
deterioration and socio-economic penalties, as with climate
disruption for example (IPCC, 2014), impede recognition of the
magnitude of the challenge and timely counteraction needed. In
addition, disciplinary specialization and insularity encourage
unfamiliarity with the complex adaptive systems (Levin, 1999) in
which problems and their potential solutions are embedded (Selby,
2006; Brand and Karvonen, 2007). Widespread ignorance of human
behavior (Van Bavel et al., 2020) and the incremental nature of
socio-political processes that plan and implement solutions further
delay effective action (Shanley and López, 2009; King, 2016).<br>
<br>
We summarize the state of the natural world in stark form here to
help clarify the gravity of the human predicament. We also outline
likely future trends in biodiversity decline (Díaz et al., 2019),
climate disruption (Ripple et al., 2020), and human consumption and
population growth to demonstrate the near certainty that these
problems will worsen over the coming decades, with negative impacts
for centuries to come. Finally, we discuss the ineffectiveness of
current and planned actions that are attempting to address the
ominous erosion of Earth's life-support system. Ours is not a call
to surrender—we aim to provide leaders with a realistic “cold
shower” of the state of the planet that is essential for planning to
avoid a ghastly future.<br>
- -<br>
<b>Conclusions</b><br>
We have summarized predictions of a ghastly future of mass
extinction, declining health, and climate-disruption upheavals
(including looming massive migrations) and resource conflicts this
century. Yet, our goal is not to present a fatalist perspective,
because there are many examples of successful interventions to
prevent extinctions, restore ecosystems, and encourage more
sustainable economic activity at both local and regional scales.
Instead, we contend that only a realistic appreciation of the
colossal challenges facing the international community might allow
it to chart a less-ravaged future. While there have been more recent
calls for the scientific community in particular to be more vocal
about their warnings to humanity (Ripple et al., 2017; Cavicchioli
et al., 2019; Gardner and Wordley, 2019), these have been
insufficiently foreboding to match the scale of the crisis. Given
the existence of a human “optimism bias” that triggers some to
underestimate the severity of a crisis and ignore expert warnings, a
good communication strategy must ideally undercut this bias without
inducing disproportionate feelings of fear and despair (Pyke, 2017;
Van Bavel et al., 2020). It is therefore incumbent on experts in any
discipline that deals with the future of the biosphere and human
well-being to eschew reticence, avoid sugar-coating the overwhelming
challenges ahead and “tell it like it is.” Anything else is
misleading at best, or negligent and potentially lethal for the
human enterprise at worst.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[Sins of the Fathers are Visited upon the Daughters]<br>
</p>
<p><b>Amy Coney Barrett Should Recuse Herself from Big Oil’s Supreme
Court Case</b><br>
The Justice’s father, who was an attorney for Shell for decades,
could have direct knowledge of how the company managed climate
threats<br>
</p>
<p>By Bill McKibben<br>
<br>
January 13, 2021<br>
</p>
<p>January 19th, the day before Joe Biden’s Inauguration, is one of
those moments when past, present, and future will collide, this
time in the halls of the Supreme Court. The Justices will hear a
case (BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore), and the
most interesting question is: How many Justices will there be?
Because, as new research makes clear, Amy Coney Barrett, the
junior member of that august bench, should recuse herself.<br>
<br>
The case before the Supreme Court hinges on a narrow procedural
question, but the underlying lawsuit is one of almost two dozen
brought by cities and states that want the oil companies to
compensate them for the damages—the rising seas and the gathering
winds—caused by the fossil-fuel industry’s products. They contend,
and the record leaves little doubt, that the industry knew for
decades that it was triggering dangerous climate change. These
were the biggest lies that companies have ever told: if Philip
Morris killed us one smoker at a time, BP and ExxonMobil and the
rest are taking out the entire planet, as the new record that the
world set for billion-dollar “natural” disasters in 2020 makes
clear. That list of duplicitous companies includes Shell, which is
where Barrett comes in: her father, Michael, was an attorney for
Shell for almost three decades. During her Senate-confirmation
hearings, Barrett provided a recusal list that she’d used during
her years as an appeals-court judge—it included four Shell
subsidiaries, but not Shell Offshore, Inc., even though her father
represented that Shell entity in court and administrative forums
for at least thirteen years. He also worked for the American
Petroleum Institute for two decades, chairing its subcommittee on
exploration and production law. And those two roles could be
crucial to the case before the Supreme Court: as Lee Wasserman,
the director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, which has played a
key role in the fight to hold oil companies responsible, points
out, Barrett père could be called for a deposition. “Justice
Barrett’s father potentially has direct knowledge of and
operational involvement in how Shell managed climate threats. He
also faces reputational risk from his association with colleagues
engaged in decades of corporate deception.”<br>
<br>
For instance, in 1988—the year that the nasa scientist James
Hansen made the greenhouse effect a public issue—Royal Dutch Shell
produced a confidential internal memo after five years of internal
reviews. The memo, which was uncovered in 2018 by the Dutch
journalist Jelmer Mommers, notes that climate impacts could
include “significant changes in sea level, ocean currents,
precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather.” It
observes that changes would impact “the human environment, future
living standards and food supplies, and could have major social,
economic and political consequences.” These environmental and
socioeconomic changes might be the “greatest in recorded history.”
The memo includes this jarring observation: “By the time the
global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take
effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to
stabilize the situation.” The document also calculated how much
Shell was on the hook for in all this; it concluded that the
company could be tied to four per cent of all the carbon dioxide
that humans, as of 1984, had spewed into the atmosphere. And
Shell’s executives took the warning seriously—among other things,
they quickly redesigned a natural-gas platform to raise its height
and protect against sea-level rise and intensifying storms. As
Wasserman says, “There is almost no chance that a person as senior
as Mr. Coney, who worked principally in the ‘offshore OCS [Outer
Continental Shelf] exploration and production area,’ would have
been unaware of the issue.” ...</p>
<p>Shell, instead of admitting the damage it had caused, joined with
other fossil-fuel companies to form the Global Climate Coalition,
which ran a huge (and hugely successful) decade-long campaign to
confuse the public. There’s no way to take that back now—it’s
water under (and, increasingly, over) the bridge. But there can
still be justice, in this case for the taxpayers of cities like
Baltimore, who, despite not being at fault for the damage wrought
by fossil-fuel companies, have to pay for the protection that
their homes now require. That justice depends on taking the past
seriously, which isn’t easy for any of us. It will be interesting
to see how Justice Barrett responds...<br>
</p>
<p>more at
-https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/amy-coney-barrett-should-recuse-herself-from-big-oils-supreme-court-case
<br>
</p>
<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 -
January 15, 2009 </b></font><br>
<p>January 15, 2009: Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) introduces HR 594, the
Save Our Climate Act (a carbon-tax bill).<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr594/text">https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr594/text</a> <br>
<br>
<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>