<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>February 1, 2021</b></font></i><br>
</p>
[NYTimes -- climate destabilization means cold too]<br>
<b>Forecast: Wild Weather in a Warming World</b><br>
The polar vortex is experiencing an unusually long disturbance this
year because of a “sudden stratospheric warming.” Bundle up...<br>
- -<br>
While the scientific evidence supporting climate change is
indisputable, the connection between climate change and the
disruptions in the stratosphere is not so settled. Dr. Cohen was an
author of a paper last year in the journal Nature Climate Change,
which looked at winter data from 2008 to 2018. The team found a
sharp increase in Northeast winter storms over the previous decade.
“Severe winter weather is much more frequent when the Arctic is
warmest,” Dr. Cohen said.<br>
- -<br>
To Dr. Francis, a senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research
Center, the influence of climate change on these phenomena is
inevitable, if still somewhat mysterious. “We’re changing the planet
in such dramatic and incontrovertible ways,” she said. “The
atmosphere is different now. The Earth’s surface is different now.
The oceans are different now. So there must be some connections that
are yet to be discovered as we do more research on the stratospheric
polar vortex.”<br>
<br>
What happens in the next few days, however, especially in the
Northeast, is growing clear, though precisely where the snow will
fall, and how deep, is difficult to predict ahead of time.<br>
<br>
“Cold is coming regardless,” Dr. Cohen said, “and someone’s getting
snow.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/climate/polar-vortex-weather-climate-change.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/climate/polar-vortex-weather-climate-change.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[From Moscow Times]<br>
<b>Peat Fires Smolder in Siberia Despite Bone-Chilling
Temperatures</b><br>
Jan. 27, 2021<br>
Siberian peat fires have continued to burn after a year of
record-setting wildfires in and around the Arctic Circle despite
temperatures below minus 50 degrees Celsius, The Siberian Times
reported Wednesday.<br>
<br>
Footage showing smoke rising from the snow in January and November
offers physical evidence of the “zombie fire” phenomenon, which
describes summertime blazes that continue smoldering through the
winter, eventually igniting new fires. European scientists have
voiced concerns that “zombie” fires could be causing
earlier-than-normal wildfires...<br>
See a Zombie fire in Yakutia - video <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbR7IyshWkA&feature=emb_logo"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbR7IyshWkA&feature=emb_logo</a>
...<br>
The republic of Sakha, Russia’s largest and coldest region, is in
the midst of one of its coldest winters in years with mercury
slipping below minus 59 C.<br>
<br>
Scientists fear that, in addition to causing an early start to
wildfire seasons, “zombie” fires could accelerate permafrost melt
that triggers unpredictable damage and greenhouse gas emissions.<br>
<br>
Russia, the world’s fourth-largest greenhouse gas emitter with an
economy heavily dependent on oil and gas, is warming more than
twice as fast as the rest of the world due to its vast Arctic
territories.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/01/27/peat-fires-smolder-in-siberia-despite-bone-chilling-temperatures-a72747"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/01/27/peat-fires-smolder-in-siberia-despite-bone-chilling-temperatures-a72747</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[A Climate Change clip from the New Yorker]<br>
<b>A New Day for the Climate</b><br>
It remains to be seen whether Joe Biden’s sweeping climate
directives can make a meaningful difference, but a critical
threshold has been crossed.<br>
By Elizabeth Kolbert<br>
January 31, 2021<br>
- -<br>
[conclusion]<br>
Whether the Biden Administration can make a meaningful difference in
the climate’s future remains very much to be seen. As the Washington
Post reported recently, before the ink was dry on the President’s
orders “the gas, oil and coal industries were already mobilizing on
all fronts.” With the conservative majority on the Supreme Court,
the Administration will have to be exceedingly careful in crafting
new climate rules; otherwise, it could watch the Court sweep away
the very basis of such rules. (The Court could revisit a key 5–4
decision, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, which
requires the agency to regulate greenhouse gases; Chief Justice John
Roberts dissented in that ruling.) There is, unfortunately, no
substitute for strong environmental legislation, and Congress hasn’t
approved a major environmental bill since 1990. With the slimmest of
possible margins in the Senate, Democrats may have trouble getting
even a modest climate-change package passed. “The paper-thin
majority likely puts sweeping global warming legislation beyond
reach,” a recent analysis by Reuters noted.<br>
<br>
Still, a critical threshold has been crossed. For decades,
politicians in Washington have avoided not just acting on but
talking about warming. “Years went by in which you could scarcely
get a Democratic Administration to put the words ‘climate’ and
‘change’ into the same paragraph,” Whitehouse observed, before
retiring his sign. “We quavered about polling showing climate as
issue eight, or issue ten, ignoring that we had a say on that
outcome. When we wouldn’t even use the phrase, let alone make the
case, no wonder the public didn’t see climate change as a priority.”
Credit for changing the conversation—for making sure that there is a
conversation—goes to stalwarts such as Whitehouse, and to a new
generation of climate activists, and to the voters who watched
California burn and southwestern Louisiana flood, and then flood
again, and pushed climate change up the agenda. In a recent Morning
Consult/Politico survey, “addressing climate change” ranked just
behind “stimulating economic recovery from covid-19” and “health
care reform” as a priority.<br>
<br>
Talking isn’t going to solve the problem, but it’s a start. “We’ve
already waited too long to deal with this climate crisis,” Biden
said last week. “It’s time to act.” ♦<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/02/08/a-new-day-for-the-climate"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/02/08/a-new-day-for-the-climate</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[information battles with new confusion troops]<br>
<b>How wildfires became ripe areas for right-wing conspiracy
theories</b><br>
By HAILEY BRANSON-POTTS, JOSEPH SERNA, ALEJANDRA REYES-VELARDE<br>
JAN. 30, 2021 <br>
- -<br>
The Camp fire, which killed 85 people and destroyed more than 13,900
homes, is the latest focus of conspiracy theories spread by Rep.
Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who speculated that the blaze might
have been started by a laser beam in space. Greene made the claim in
a now-deleted Facebook post that was reported this week by Media
Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group.<br>
<br>
“It’s crazy,” Heart said. “Eighty-five people died in that fire. I
lost my whole life of collections, artworks, things that I worked
for my whole life. For someone to make light of it like that — it
really hurts.”<br>
<br>
In the meandering November 2018 Facebook post, Greene theorized that
a space-based solar generator, used in a clean-energy experiment
with the goal of replacing coal and oil, could have beamed the sun’s
energy back to Earth and started the fire.<br>
<br>
“There are all these people,” she wrote, “who have said they saw
what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires ...
If they are beaming the suns [sic] energy back to Earth, I’m sure
they wouldn’t ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!!
... Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don’t know.”<br>
<br>
California wildfires have been ripe for conspiracy for years, but
Greene’s comments surface at a time when a sizable segment of the
American population is treating false conjecture as fact — from
armed people in Oregon on the lookout for so-called antifa members
starting blazes to the mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol based on
former President Trump’s baseless claims of a rigged election.<br>
<br>
Greene’s post speculated that former Gov. Jerry Brown, Pacific Gas
& Electric, and Rothschild Inc. — an investment firm that has
long been the target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories accusing
Jewish people of controlling global affairs — were involved. It also
falsely claims that the blaze followed the path of California’s
planned high-speed rail line.<br>
<br>
Republican leaders have faced increasing pressure over their
handling of Greene, who was assigned this month to the House
Education and Labor Committee. A representative for House Minority
Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) did not respond to requests
for comment.<br>
<br>
In response to a question from The Times about Greene’s theory about
the Camp fire, a spokesman for Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale), who
represents Paradise, wrote: “Congressman LaMalfa believes that poor
forest management practices advocated by misguided environmentalists
have caused dangerous fuel loads and increasingly severe Western
wildfires. He has led the conversation in Congress for reform and
next month will introduce a wide-ranging package of bills to prevent
future wildfires and minimize wildfire risk.”<br>
<br>
He did not address Greene’s comments.<br>
<br>
Greene put out a statement Friday addressed to “the radical,
left-wing Democrat mob and the Fake News media trying to take me
out.”<br>
<br>
“I will never back down,” she wrote. “I will never give up. ... More
MAGA reinforcements are on the way.”<br>
<br>
Greene’s comments have incensed people who lived through tragedies
she has speculated about.<br>
<br>
Fred Guttenberg, whose 14-year-old daughter Jaime was fatally shot
along with 16 other people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
in Parkland, Fla., in 2018, was scrolling through Twitter on
Thursday night when he saw the phrase “Jewish space laser” trending.
When Guttenberg, who is Jewish, realized it was about Greene’s post,
he was disgusted.<br>
<br>
“She denies that my daughter died in Parkland ... and yet, because
my last name is Guttenberg, because I am Jewish, she thinks I shoot
lasers at forests and start fires,” Guttenberg told The Times. “You
can’t make this up.”<br>
<br>
Guttenberg said he holds McCarthy and other GOP leaders responsible
and said they “need to take her at her word and do something before
someone gets hurt.” He said he found no humor in Greene’s
speculation about the Camp fire.<br>
<br>
“There are a lot of people who are willing to believe these things,”
he said. “They use a universe of alternative facts to justify
engaging in violence ... It can’t be allowed to continue.”<br>
<br>
The Camp fire was sparked by PG&E electrical equipment, some of
which was nearly 100 years old. The company pleaded guilty to 84
counts of involuntary manslaughter last June.<br>
<br>
“If a Jewish laser was able to accurately target the rusted-out,
100-year-old transmission tower that caused the fire, what a good
shot they were. It was a hell of a good shot,” Lee Houskeeper, a
media consultant for a law firm that represented scores of Camp fire
victims in lawsuits against PG&E, told The Times, sarcastically.<br>
<br>
Skepticism toward government messaging isn’t new, and knocking down
rumors has always been part of the job for crisis communicators. But
now, in the age of social media, false information spreads like,
well, wildfire and can be dangerous in real time when officials need
to quickly share the facts about fast-moving crises.<br>
<br>
“The one challenging aspect all fire departments, all government
entities face is, the information we post is verified and … there
are times the general public is able to post something online that
gets traction just based on their perception of what’s happening,”
said Nick Schuler, a deputy fire chief with the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.<br>
<br>
“If I were down at the beach today and posted ‘Hey, a giant wave
took out the sea wall,’ you’d have several people re-sharing that
information, posting it, probably before the city would be able to
say ‘No, that’s not correct.’”<br>
<br>
Schuler recalled getting a flurry of media inquiries in 2017 when
people began to wrongly connect a massive solar flare with wildfires
in San Diego.<br>
<br>
Last year, firefighting crews in Oregon encountered groups of people
who were convinced that wildfires burning there were started by
antifa. The people were stopping residents from moving on local
roads and, in at least one case, prohibited firefighters from going
onto their property to help set up a defensive position for oncoming
flames.<br>
<br>
When fires are extreme or wind-driven, their burn patterns can seem
completely illogical to the uninitiated, and thus ripe for
conspiracy as people try to make sense of what happened, said Jack
Cohen, a wildfire expert and retired U.S. Forest Service
firefighter.<br>
<br>
The Carr fire that burned in Shasta and Trinity counties in Northern
California in 2018 seemed to char every inch of forest in some
areas, but one or two homes would survive. During the Camp fire
later that year, much of the tree line remained intact, but homes
tucked within them were destroyed.<br>
<br>
Cohen said he first started hearing conspiracy theories about
space-based directed-energy weapons after high-definition drone
images showed the Camp fire’s pattern of destruction. People he
said, are “obscenely obsessed” with what causes wildfires and fill
in the blanks when they can’t explain them.<br>
<br>
While people are impressed by high-intensity big flames, he said,
the reality is that many homes and structures are destroyed more
slowly during wildfires by burning embers and low-intensity surface
fires that linger in vegetation.<br>
<br>
Steve Crowder, the mayor of Paradise, said he is more focused on
rebuilding than on listening to theories about space lasers.<br>
<br>
“People are definitely still suffering and there are people who will
never get over it,” he said. “I don’t think statements like that
make a whole lot of difference one way or another. I don’t take it
too seriously.”<br>
<br>
Crowder said the town has already rebuilt 600 buildings and that
PG&E is installing underground power lines throughout Paradise.
Eventually, he said, Paradise will be more advanced than many other
municipalities in terms of fire safety and communications.<br>
<br>
“Don’t waste your time on the myths,” he advised.<br>
<br>
Anastasia and Daniel Skinner laughed when they heard Greene’s
theory.<br>
<br>
In early 2019, the couple were living in an RV on their scorched
property. Money was tight as they paid for water, propane, gas and
other necessities for their five young children — costs that
amounted to more than their monthly mortgage for the home the fire
destroyed.<br>
<br>
Then, the RV was stolen. Another property the couple own in the area
was being foreclosed. They had hoped settlement money from PG&E
would help save that home, but they haven’t seen a dime.<br>
<br>
To hear a politician from another state spreading rumors about the
fire that upended their lives is “silly” and “annoying,” Anastasia
said.<br>
<br>
“There’s no way to prove lasers from space would have caused the
fire,” Daniel said. “But she’s getting a lot of attention.”<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, he said, victims and people who actually do help families
like his don’t get enough of it.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-30/a-space-laser-did-it-gop-congressman-had-out-there-theory-on-deadly-california-wildfire"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-30/a-space-laser-did-it-gop-congressman-had-out-there-theory-on-deadly-california-wildfire</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[change is now much easier]<br>
<b>New study: A zero-emissions US is now pretty cheap</b><br>
In 2050, benefits to the US offset costs, but there are some
unexpected outcomes.<br>
JOHN TIMMER - 1/31/2021<br>
In many areas of the United States, installing a wind or solar farm
is now cheaper than simply buying fuel for an existing fossil
fuel-based generator. And that's dramatically changing the
electricity market in the US and requiring a lot of people to update
prior predictions. That has motivated a group of researchers to take
a new look at the costs and challenges of getting the entire US to
carbon neutrality.By building a model of the energy market for the
entire US, the researchers explored what it will take to get the
country to the point where its energy use has no net emissions in
2050—and they even looked at a scenario where emissions are
negative. They found that, as you'd expect, the costs drop
dramatically—to less than 1 percent of the GDP, even before counting
the costs avoided by preventing the worst impacts of climate change.
And, as an added bonus, we would pay less for our power...<br>
- -<br>
<b>Model all the things</b><br>
Decent models of the future energy economy are complex. They
typically involve breaking the grid down by region and simulating
typical demand by using historic data, often scaled to represent
increased demand. They'll then try to meet that demand using
different energy sources, subject to a set of applied constraints.
So, in this case, one of the constraints would obviously be limiting
carbon emissions. The model then iterates over possible ways of
meeting both the demand and constraints in the most economical way
possible, identifying an optimal solution...<br>
- -<br>
One of the things that's immediately apparent from running the
business-as-usual model is how much already changes thanks to the
price drops in wind and solar. In this scenario, carbon emissions
will drop by 22 percent, largely due to the displacement of coal
use. It's worthwhile knowing this, as any proposals for a target in
that area can be dismissed as irrelevant. Another thing that is
clear is that decarbonizing the energy system doesn't mean the US
will eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. The non-carbon greenhouse
gases will still provide the equivalent of 500 metric megatons of
carbon dioxide.<br>
<br>
<b>Efficiency and beyond</b><br>
One of the things the research has made clear is that efficiency
will be absolutely necessary for reaching emissions targets. By
2050, rising population and GDP should boost energy demand in the
absence of efficiency. But, to get to carbon neutrality, we'll have
to keep energy use roughly equal to our present levels. Some
efficiency will occur simply because electrical vehicles and heating
systems are inherently more efficient. But it's clear that we'll
need quite a bit beyond that, since the research team estimates that
per-capita energy use has to decline by about 40 percent in the next
30 years to reach carbon neutrality...<br>
- -<br>
Part of the reason it is so cheap is because reaching the goal
doesn't require replacing viable hardware. All of the things that
need to be taken out of service, from coal-fired generators to gas
hot-water heaters, have finite lifetimes. The researchers calculate
that simply replacing everything with renewables or high-efficiency
electric versions will manage the transition in sufficient time.<br>
<br>
<b>Not what you might expect</b><br>
Many takes on a carbon-neutral grid assume that periods of low solar
and wind production will be smoothed over with gas generators using
carbon capture and storage. But this analysis suggests that any
remaining gas plants simply won't run often enough to provide an
economic justification for the carbon-capture hardware. Similar
things are true with batteries; the periods when demand outstrips
capacity are expected to be so rare that it doesn't make economic
sense to build that many batteries to cover them.<br>
<br>
Instead, gas plants will simply dump their carbon emissions into the
sky. This ends up being carbon neutral because we'll still need some
liquid fuels for things like air travel, and we'll make these with
carbon pulled back out of the atmosphere, combined with hydrogen
produced from water during periods of excess renewable supply. The
researchers estimate that we would require 3,500 terawatts just to
make enough hydrogen—roughly the same amount of electricity we make
currently...<br>
- -<br>
Going entirely renewable actually forces much higher levels of
carbon capture to ensure that fuel needs could be met without any
fossil fuels. And going net negative involves a variety of carbon
capture and biofuels, with substantial land use as a result of the
latter.<br>
<br>
<b>Everything has changed</b><br>
To an extent, the researchers themselves seem somewhat surprised by
how much has changed in the last few years. "The net cost of deep
decarbonization, even to meet a 1°C/350 ppm trajectory," they write,
"is substantially lower than estimates for less ambitious 80 percent
by 2050 scenarios a few years ago." It also provides clarity to what
has been an uncertain future. "Until recently, it was unclear
whether variable renewable energy, nuclear, or fossil fuel with
carbon capture and storage would become the main form of generation
in a decarbonized electricity system," they note. "The cost decline
of variable renewable energy over the last few years, however, has
definitively changed the situation."<br>
<br>
Now, even if we go for deep decarbonization, we'll be investing in
the future. It will cost money to get there, but we'll have lower
future energy costs if we pay the price upfront—as well as improved
health and a more stable climate.<br>
<br>
There are, however, significant hurdles to getting there beyond
simple economics. The emission-free future will involve us
installing roughly 160GW of wind and solar per year in less than two
decades; 2021 will see us installing only 15GW. And the switch to
electric vehicles and appliances has to start now—anything that
breaks should be replaced with an electric version, which does not
seem to be happening.<br>
<br>
But if this analysis holds up, there are good reasons to think it's
worth getting started.<br>
AGU Advances, 2021. DOI: 10.1029/2020AV000284 (About DOIs).<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/new-study-a-zero-emissions-us-is-now-pretty-cheap/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/new-study-a-zero-emissions-us-is-now-pretty-cheap/</a><br>
- -<br>
[source material in AGU Advances]<br>
<b>Carbon‐Neutral Pathways for the United States</b><br>
First published: 14 January 2021 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020AV000284" moz-do-not-send="true">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020AV000284</a><br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
<blockquote> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C points to the need for
carbon neutrality by mid‐century. Achieving this in the United
States in only 30 years will be challenging, and practical
pathways detailing the technologies, infrastructure, costs, and
tradeoffs involved are needed. Modeling the entire U.S. energy and
industrial system with new analysis tools that capture synergies
not represented in sector‐specific or integrated assessment
models, we created multiple pathways to net zero and net negative
CO2 emissions by 2050. They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at
a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or
near‐commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of
existing infrastructure. Pathways with constraints on consumer
behavior, land use, biomass use, and technology choices (e.g., no
nuclear) met the target but at higher cost. All pathways employed
four basic strategies: energy efficiency, decarbonized
electricity, electrification, and carbon capture. Least‐cost
pathways were based on >80% wind and solar electricity plus
thermal generation for reliability. A 100% renewable primary
energy system was feasible but had higher cost and land use. We
found multiple feasible options for supplying low‐carbon fuels for
non‐electrifiable end uses in industry, freight, and aviation,
which were not required in bulk until after 2035. In the next
decade, the actions required in all pathways were similar: expand
renewable capacity 3.5 fold, retire coal, maintain existing gas
generating capacity, and increase electric vehicle and heat pump
sales to >50% of market share. This study provides a playbook
for carbon neutrality policy with concrete near‐term priorities.<br>
</blockquote>
<b>Plain Language Summary</b><br>
<blockquote> We created multiple blueprints for the United States to
reach zero or negative CO2 emissions from the energy system by
2050 to avoid the most damaging impacts of climate change. By
methodically increasing energy efficiency, switching to electric
technologies, utilizing clean electricity (especially wind and
solar power), and deploying a small amount of carbon capture
technology, the United States can reach zero emissions without
requiring changes to behavior. Cost is about $1 per person per
day, not counting climate benefits; this is significantly less
than estimates from a few years ago because of recent technology
progress. Models with more detail than used in the past revealed
unexpected synergies, counterintuitive results, and tradeoffs. The
lowest‐cost electricity systems get >80% of energy from wind
and solar power but need other resources to provide reliable
service. Eliminating fossil fuel use altogether is possible but
higher cost. Restricting biomass use and land for renewables is
possible but could require nuclear power to compensate. All
blueprints for the United States agree on the key tasks for the
2020s: increasing the capacity of wind and solar power by 3.5
times, retiring coal plants, and increasing electric vehicle and
electric heat pump sales to >50% of market share.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020AV000284"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020AV000284</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[for those who went West]<br>
<b>Climate Change Ravaged the West With Heat and Drought Last Year;
Many Fear 2021 Will Be Worse</b><br>
“We've got a pretty deep hole that 2020 has dug for us,” said one
climatologist. “Even a good year is not going to break us out of
that.”<br>
By Judy Fahys<br>
January 31, 2021<br>
If there were any doubts that the climate is changing in the
Colorado River Basin, 2020 went a long way toward dispelling them,
thanks to yet another year of extreme weather. <br>
<br>
Unprecedented wildfires, deadly heat waves, withering drought—the
many indicators of the climate mayhem that scientists have been
warning about for years—ravaged the landscape, claiming dozens of
lives and causing billions of dollars in damage.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mk0insideclimats3pe4.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WesternStatesDroughtChart.png"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mk0insideclimats3pe4.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WesternStatesDroughtChart.png</a><br>
<br>
Colorado endured an unprecedented wildfire season. And so did
California, in some cases burning where the wounds were still fresh
from the epic fires of 2018. Utah experienced its driest year ever,
and persistent high temperatures killed more people in Arizona than
ever before. Monsoon rains that typically bring relief throughout
the region were a no-show for the second summer in a row and now are
being called the “non-soon.”<br>
And, although the final climate data for 2020 just arrived and the
new year is just weeks old, forecasters are already filled with
apprehension about what lies ahead for the West this year.<br>
<br>
“We’ve got a pretty deep hole that 2020 has dug for us,” said Jon
Meyer, research climatologist for the Utah Climate Center who points
to low soil moisture, high temperatures and other measures of a
hotter, drier climate. “Even a good year is not going to break us
out of that.”<br>
<br>
From the California coast to the eastern borders of Colorado and New
Mexico, 2021 is beginning with virtually all of the Colorado River
Basin in “extreme” or “exceptional” drought, conditions that haven’t
been eased by this winter’s snowfall. Forecasters talk about a “snow
drought” because the snowpack is so poor and snow cover across the
West is lower than at any time over the past two decades. This year
Lake Powell, the nation’s second largest reservoir, is expected to
receive just half as much runoff as usual.<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Little Rain, but a ‘Lot of Hot Air’ in Arizona</b><br>
Arizona started drying out rapidly last spring and, since October,
the entire state has been in some form of drought. Now, all but 6
percent of the state is in dire “extreme” or “exceptional” drought
that leaves wildlife and plants stressed.<br>
<br>
“Whatever [snow] we do get, when it comes time to melt in the
spring, it’s just going to soak right into the ground,” said Nancy
Selover, Arizona’s state climatologist. “The ground is so dry, it’s
just gonna suck it up. We’re not going to get a lot of good runoff,
and we’re not going to get a lot of good streamflow, reservoir
infill or any of that kind of stuff, so we’re concerned.”<br>
<br>
She pointed out that instead of monsoon rains that raise humidity
and lower temperatures through the summer, high-pressure and high
temperatures were relentless for the second year in a row.<br>
<br>
“We didn’t have storms—we just had a lot of hot air,” said Selover,
pointing to withering 110- and 115-degree days that led to a record
number of 29 nights when the low never got below 90 degrees. “The
previous record was 15 days.”<br>
<br>
Those high temperatures posed a major heat risk, especially to
people without air conditioning and those who work outdoors. She
also pointed out that, not only is it tough to sleep when the
temperature is 90 degrees or warmer” but also “the body doesn’t
recover, and so we have a lot of heat deaths this year, more than we
would normally have.”<br>
<br>
When final data for last year rolled in, the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration showed that Arizona had endured its
second hottest year on record, with an average temperature of 62.6
degrees Fahrenheit. That’s a stunning 2.9 degrees higher than the
average over more than a century and less than half a degree shy of
the record annual average set in 2017.<br>
<br>
Tucson, Arizona, had its hottest year, which was nearly 3 degrees
Fahrenheit higher than the average since 1981, 72.7. And Phoenix had
its second warmest year, 77.3 degrees, a surprising 2.2 degrees
higher than the annual average over the past four decades.<br>
<br>
<b>Record Numbers of Billion-Dollar Disasters and Deaths</b><br>
Heat turned out to be the biggest factor in weather and climate
related deaths in a dozen western and central states last year,
according to the latest national billion-dollar disasters tally. The
drought and heat wave caused 45 deaths—most of them
heat-related—said Adam Smith, who collects the data for NOAA’s
National Centers for Environmental Information.<br>
<p>Smith’s analysis is fast becoming a key metric in measuring the
impacts of climate change. It compiles the costs in property
damage and human lives associated with growing populations, more
assets in harm’s way and the increased frequency of extreme
weather, much of it driven by global warming. Last year the tally
detailed $95 billion in costs tied to 22 events, the largest
number of billion-dollar disasters recorded since NOAA began the
list in 1980.</p>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mk0insideclimats3pe4.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/AgCountiesUSDrought.png"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mk0insideclimats3pe4.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/AgCountiesUSDrought.png</a><br>
<p>Smith said the estimate includes a broad range of quantifiable
costs, such as damage to commercial and residential properties,
crop losses, increased feeding costs for livestock and spending on
fighting wildfires.</p>
“It’s a conservative but solid estimate,” he said.<br>
<br>
The firestorms in California, Oregon and Washington racked up an
estimated $16.5 billion in costs and claimed 46 lives. Excessive
heat across the West included a record temperature of 121 degrees in
Los Angeles County and 130 degrees Fahrenheit in Death Valley (the
highest recorded globally in decades). That heat, along with
drought, came with a separate $4.5 billion price tag that included
$1 billion to $2 billion associated with Colorado’s three largest
blazes in state history.<br>
<br>
And those numbers can’t account for the full range of costs, since
some impacts won’t be clear for months or years.<br>
<br>
“As striking as that $95 billion figure is, I think it’s really
important that we remember that the human toll of climate and
weather disasters is profound,” said Vijay Limaye, an epidemiologist
who studies the health consequences of climate change for the
Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s staggering, and it’s
widespread.”<br>
<br>
He said extreme heat poses acute risks to human health not just
through premature mortality from heatstroke, but also through a
number of other health problems that aren’t fully measured by the
billion-dollar disaster statistics. The health care-related costs of
the wildfire smoke that shrouded skies across the West last summer
and fall are not included, even though the smoke triggers heart and
lung problems and is sometimes blamed for premature death. Nor are
the little-understood mental health consequences of drought counted,
he said.<br>
<br>
<b>A Thirstier Atmosphere Dries Out Farms and Drives Fires</b><br>
Mistie Christiansen, who oversees USDA Farm Service Agency programs
in central Utah’s Emery and Carbon counties, said the climate trends
are disrupting life on the land and the people who depend on it.<br>
<br>
“Ponds are dry; streams are dry; springs that would normally have
supplied livestock and rangeland are dry; rivers are historically
low,” she said. “It’s the compound factor of multiple years of this
issue that’s really hard. People are really struggling.”<br>
<br>
Area ranches and farms that depended on irrigation from Muddy Creek
ran out of water by the end of last June. Her family cut just one
crop of hay instead of the usual three and had to spend $45,000 to
buy more to feed its livestock. This year, they’re expecting to
spend at least $30,000 to make up for what the desiccated land
cannot provide. Meanwhile, the cows are weaker and pregnancy rates
are down, she said.<br>
<br>
Based on the string of rough years and how things are looking now,
Christiansen said she wouldn’t be surprised to see another bad year
for livestock growers. “And if things don’t change, you’ll see a
major sell off,” she said.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mk0insideclimats3pe4.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MountainStatesDroughtMap.png"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mk0insideclimats3pe4.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MountainStatesDroughtMap.png</a><br>
<br>
<b>Drought Deepens as New Year Begins</b><br>
Despite the pain that global warming brings to rural communities
like hers, Christiansen believes a higher power is changing the
climate, not humans. Still, she shares one view with many climate
scientists.<br>
<br>
“There’s no longer normal,” Christiansen said. “I would love to see
what is normal anymore, because we just swing from extremes.”<br>
<br>
Jeff Lukas, an independent climate consultant in Colorado, said the
world’s rapid warming is making the atmosphere thirstier “and that
is so apparent in the second half of 2020.” Dry years can happen in
the absence of climate change, he said. But the atmosphere’s
capacity to hold more water, which leads it to suck moisture from
the soil, trees and snowpack, has increased significantly in
response to what might seem like an insignificant amount of
warming—about 2 degrees Fahrenheit.<br>
<br>
“What [last year] will be mostly remembered for, from a weather and
climate perspective, is how things dried out so much in the summer
and fall as a result of both low precipitation and very high
temperatures,” said Lukas, who tracked climate and weather events at
the Western Water Assessment for more than a decade. The dryness
“led to the kind of fuel conditions and fire weather, that led to
those incredible wildfires in August and September.” <br>
<br>
For Lukas, one day-long period of extreme fire behavior last year
stands out: when Colorado’s East Troublesome Fire ran 20 miles,
expanding from 18,000 acres to 180,000 acres, eventually jumping
over the Continental Divide in Rocky Mountain National Park last
October. He noted that the heat, aridity and winds that set the
stage for tshe blaze are not completely unheard of in autumn. But
for such a fire to ignite and grow into the second largest blaze in
state history in October, a month that is normally cool and moist,
is unprecedented.<br>
<br>
“To see it in real time, and to know that thousands of your fellow
citizens are urgently trying to get themselves and their animals out
of the path of this incredibly fast moving, incredibly dangerous
fire, it is just stomach churning to watch it happen.”<br>
<b><br>
</b><b>2021 Set Up For More Heat and Drought</b><br>
No one’s started using the word “scary” yet, but all reports seem to
suggest 2021 could bring more of the same. <br>
-- The snowpack for the Colorado River’s four Upper Basin
states—Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico—is 67 percent of
average. That puts this year on par so far with 2018, which went on
to be a terrible year for wildfire, drought and heat.<br>
-- With reservoirs already low, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
recently nudged those states to prepare for implementing the Upper
Basin Drought Contingency Plan so Lake Powell can continue next year
to meet the demands of the 40 million people who rely on Colorado
River water.<br>
-- The water that’s flowed into Lake Powell since October is 44
percent of the normally expected flow.<br>
-- Drought is expected to persist into spring, and odds are that
Colorado River Basin states will remain warmer and drier than
normal, too.<br>
“There really isn’t any good news for water resources in the
Colorado River Basin right now, which is raising a lot of red flags
coming into the upcoming year,” said Jon Meyer of Utah’s Climate
Center. <br>
<br>
“We’re not totally sunk yet,” he said, noting that there are still a
few months for snow to start falling and snowpack to build before
warmer weather begins. But, if what we’ve seen play out over the
last two to three months continues through the spring, he added,
then the pain farmers and ranchers felt last year will expand across
the region, and western cities will be suffering too.<br>
<br>
Judy Fahys. Reporter, Mountain West, National Environmental
Reporting Network... Her work has appeared in the New York Times,
the Washington Post, High Country News and Outside magazine and
aired on NPR. She serves on the board of the Society of
Environmental Journalists.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://inideclimatenews.org/news/31012021/climate-change-west-droughts-wildfire/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://inideclimatenews.org/news/31012021/climate-change-west-droughts-wildfire/</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 -
February 1, 2009 </b></font><br>
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann takes it to House Minority Leader John
Boehner (R-OH):<br>
<blockquote>"But our winner, House Minority Leader John Boehner of
Ohio. We assume that when it comes to politicians and math there
is going to be some lying. But lying to the tune of 140 times the
truth? Boehner‘s criticism of the Obama‘s proposals on cap and
trade, making energy in this country as green as possible,
includes this statement: 'anyone who has the audacity to flip on a
light switch will be forced to pay higher energy bills thanks to
this new tax increase, which will cost every American family up to
$3,100 per year in higher energy prices.'<br>
<br>
"That is true if your family is a large one, say 101 people.
Boehner has taken a research study done two years ago at MIT on
the affect of cap and trade on energy prices and he has lied about
it. The number in the study was not up to $3,100 per family. It
was up to $31 per person. And even that would not kick in until
2015. <br>
<br>
"So the average additional cost per family six years from now
would be 79 bucks, minus however much foreign gas prices would
drop based on decreased demand, and minus the lowered health care,
because of the cleaner atmosphere. Thirty one bucks, 3,100 bucks,
it‘s all the same to Congressman John "The Mathlete" Boehner,
today‘s worst person in the world.”<br>
</blockquote>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30012135/#.Uoq1MSeHPs0"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30012135/#.Uoq1MSeHPs0</a></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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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" moz-do-not-send="true">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote" moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://TheClimate.Vote</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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>