<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>March 8, 2021</b></font></i></p>
[Homeland Security News Wire] <br>
<b>Threshold for Dangerous Warming Will Likely Be Crossed between
2027 and 2042</b><br>
2 March 2021<br>
The threshold for dangerous global warming will likely be crossed
between 2027 and 2042 – a much narrower window than the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s estimate of between now
and 2052. In a new study, researchers introduce a new and more
precise way to project the Earth’s temperature. Based on historical
data, it considerably reduces uncertainties compared to previous
approaches.<br>
<br>
The threshold .... between 2027 and 2042 -- [is] a much narrower
window than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s estimate
of between now and 2052. In a study published in Climate Dynamics,
researchers from McGill University introduce a new and more precise
way to project the Earth’s temperature. Based on historical data, it
considerably reduces uncertainties compared to previous approaches.<br>
<br>
Scientists have been making projections of future global warming
using climate models for decades. These models play an important
role in understanding the Earth’s climate and how it will likely
change. But how accurate are they?<br>
<br>
Dealing with uncertainty<br>
Climate models are mathematical simulations of different factors
that interact to affect Earth’s climate, such as the atmosphere,
ocean, ice, land surface and the sun. While they are based on the
best understanding of the Earth’s systems available, when it comes
to forecasting the future, uncertainties remain...<br>
- -<br>
“Now that governments have finally decided to act on climate change,
we must avoid situations where leaders can claim that even the
weakest policies can avert dangerous consequences,” says co-author
Shaun Lovejoy, a professor in the Physics Department at McGill
University. “With our new climate model and its next generation
improvements, there’s less wiggle room.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20210302-threshold-for-dangerous-warming-will-likely-be-crossed-between-2027-and-2042">http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20210302-threshold-for-dangerous-warming-will-likely-be-crossed-between-2027-and-2042</a><br>
- -<br>
[Source material Springer Link]<br>
<b>An observation-based scaling model for climate sensitivity
estimates and global projections to 2100</b><br>
Raphaël Hébert, Shaun Lovejoy & Bruno Tremblay <br>
Climate Dynamics volume 56, pages1105–1129<br>
<blockquote><b>Abstract</b><br>
We directly exploit the stochasticity of the internal variability,
and the linearity of the forced response to make global
temperature projections based on historical data and a Green’s
function, or Climate Response Function (CRF). To make the problem
tractable, we take advantage of the temporal scaling symmetry to
define a scaling CRF characterized by the scaling exponent H,
which controls the long-range memory of the climate, i.e. how fast
the system tends toward a steady-state, and an inner scale τ≈2
years below which the higher-frequency response is smoothed out.
An aerosol scaling factor and a non-linear volcanic damping
exponent were introduced to account for the large uncertainty in
these forcings. We estimate the model and forcing parameters by
Bayesian inference which allows us to analytically calculate the
transient climate response and the equilibrium climate sensitivity
as: 1.7+0.3−0.2 K and 2.4+1.3−0.6 K respectively (likely range).
Projections to 2100 according to the RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5
scenarios yield warmings with respect to 1880–1910 of:
1.5+0.4−0.2K, 2.3+0.7−0.5 K and 4.2+1.3−0.9 K. These projection
estimates are lower than the ones based on a Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project phase 5 multi-model ensemble; more
importantly, their uncertainties are smaller and only depend on
historical temperature and forcing series. The key uncertainty is
due to aerosol forcings; we find a modern (2005) forcing value of
[−1.0,−0.3]Wm−2 (90 % confidence interval) with median at
−0.7Wm−2. Projecting to 2100, we find that to keep the warming
below 1.5 K, future emissions must undergo cuts similar to RCP 2.6
for which the probability to remain under 1.5 K is 48 %. RCP 4.5
and RCP 8.5-like futures overshoot with very high probability.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05521-x">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05521-x</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Important, informational video <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/W9CcdjEqUag">https://youtu.be/W9CcdjEqUag</a> ]<br>
<b>Skepticism: Why critical thinking makes you smarter | Bill Nye,
Derren Brown & more | Big Think</b><br>
Mar 7, 2021<br>
Big Think<br>
Skepticism: Why critical thinking makes you smarter<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
It's not always easy to tell the difference between objective truth
and what we believe to be true. Separating facts from opinions,
according to skeptic Michael Shermer, theoretical physicist Lawrence
Krauss, and others, requires research, self-reflection, and time.<br>
<br>
Recognizing your own biases and those of others, avoiding echo
chambers, actively seeking out opposing voices, and asking smart,
testable questions are a few of the ways that skepticism can be a
useful tool for learning and growth.<br>
<br>
As Derren Brown points out, being "skeptical of skepticism" can also
lead to interesting revelations and teach us new things about
ourselves and our psychology.<br>
<br>
Read Michael Shermer's latest book "Skeptic: Viewing the World with
a Rational Eye" at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://amzn.to/3c7vP58">https://amzn.to/3c7vP58</a><br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
TRANSCRIPT:<br>
<br>
LAWRENCE KRAUSS: I like to keep an open mind but not so open that my
brains fall out. And that's the key point. We have to skeptically
assess the information we receive. We can't be gullible because when
we get a lot of information, it's absolutely certain that some of
that information is wrong. And so we have to always filter what we
get. And we have to ask ourselves the following question: "How open
does my brain have to be to accept that information? Does it have to
fall out?" And by that, I mean when someone tells you something you
have to ask "Is this consistent with my experience? Is it consistent
with the experience of other people around me?" And if it isn't,
then probably there's a good reason to be skeptical about it; it's
probably wrong. If it makes predictions that also appear to be in
disagreement with things that you observe around you, you should
question it.<br>
<br>
And so we should never take anything on faith. That's really the
mantra of science, if you want, that faith is the enemy of science.
We often talk about a loss of faith in the world today. You don't
lose anything by losing faith. What you gain is reality. And so
skepticism plays a key role in science simply because we also are
hard-wired to want to believe. We're hard-wired to want to find
reasons for things. In the savanna in Africa, the trees could be
rustling and you could choose to say, "Well, there's no reason for
that." Or, "Maybe it's due to a lion." And those individuals who
thought there might be no reason, never lived long enough to survive
to procreate. And so it's not too surprising, we want to find
explanations for everything. And we create them if we need to, to
satisfy ourselves, because we need to make sense of the world around
us. And what we have to understand is that what makes sense to the
universe, is not the same as what makes sense to us. And we can't
impose our beliefs on the universe. And the way we get around that
inherent bias is by constantly questioning both ourselves and all
the information we receive from others. That's what we do in science
and it works beautifully in the real world as well.<br>
<br>
MICHAEL SHERMER: The problem is this. None of us has the truth. The
only way to find out if you're deceiving yourself or not, if you've
gone off the rails, if you're wrong in some way, is to listen to
other people who disagree with you. I started encountering other
people that disagreed with me. You know, we-never-went-to-the-moon
people, conspiracy people, whatever. And I thought, "Okay, so how do
we know, if I don't know what's coming down the pike say in 10 years
from now, if I was gonna teach my students how to think critically,
what are the key points, like just basic questions they could ask?"
So, it begins with one: How reliable is the source of the claim?
Here's the claim, how reliable is it? What's the evidence for it?
What's the quality of the evidence? Where does it come from? Who
said that? Is this some fake news, alternative site thing, or is it
The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times? The source really
matters. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? This is super
important because everybody thinks they're right and every website
has testimonials about this product or that idea. The question is
not "What do your supporters think?" but "What do the people who
don't agree with you think?" Because that's what I wanna know. Has
anyone run an experiment to try to disprove your theory? And so in
science, this is as basic as it gets. Karl Popper called this the
Principle of Falsification. That is, we can't ever prove a theory
correct, but we can disprove it by having an experiment that shows
it's wrong.<br>
<br>
So, if you can't falsify it, what are you really doing? And my
favorite story on...<br>
Read the full transcript at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bigthink.com/videos/critical-thinking-skills">https://bigthink.com/videos/critical-thinking-skills</a><br>
See the video <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9CcdjEqUag">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9CcdjEqUag</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
[consistent journalist] <br>
<b>The climate reporting of Elizabeth Kolbert</b><br>
One of the most closely watched journalists has the luxury of space,
depth, and time in her books and her frequent New Yorker articles.By
SueEllen Campbell | Friday, March 5, 2021<br>
New Yorker staff writer Elizabeth Kolbert has long been one of the
most prolific and closely-watched journalists regularly reporting on
climate change. Her pieces are well worth reading, her topics
serious and, at the same time, enjoyable, perhaps because her style
is so personable and lucid: she takes us along as she explores and
learns.<br>
<br>
Note: The New Yorker allows several free reads per month before its
paywall appears.<br>
<br>
If you missed Kolbert’s influential 2006 book Field Notes from a
Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change, it deserves your time
even now. Or you can read the three magazine pieces (“The Climate of
Man,” 2005) that comprise much the book: first piece, second piece,
and third piece.<br>
<br>
Since then, in addition to her Pulitzer-winning book The Sixth
Extinction, Kolbert has written interesting articles about:<br>
--direct air carbon capture (2017), a technology that might save us
if it ever becomes practical in scale and cost,<br>
-- ice melt on Greenland (2016), and<br>
-- Miami (2015) and its rising sea level problem<br>
<p>Kolbert’s new book, Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future,
looks at how thoroughly we have altered our planet and the kinds
of possibly compensatory, possibly dangerous alterations humans
are making now, or may decide to make. Her two biggest topics are
climate change/geoengineering and the loss of
biodiversity/bioengineering.</p>
Because this book is just now out, there are several excellent
interviews available for review in transcript form, including these
three:<br>
-- with Ezra Klein, on the Ezra Klein Show podcast (at this New York
Times link or via other sources for podcasts); note that Klein’s
past podcasts include other interviews focused on climate change;<br>
-- with Dave Davies, on Fresh Air (National Public Radio); and<br>
-- with Jeff Goodell, at Rolling Stone; Goodell’s journalistic beat
overlaps with Kolbert’s, as in his fine 2013 article about Miami and
subsequent book, The Water Will Come (2017)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/03/the-climate-reporting-of-elizabeth-kolbert/">https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/03/the-climate-reporting-of-elizabeth-kolbert/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Classic issue revived from 2 years ago]<br>
<b>Trending Globally: What Is Methane, and Why Is It So Bad for the
Climate?</b><br>
Feb 13, 2021<br>
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs<br>
On this episode Sarah talks with Watson Senior Fellow and member of
Watson’s Climate Solutions Lab Deborah Gordon. Deborah is an expert
on one of the most destructive greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere:
methane. Thanks to the work of people like Deborah, the Biden
Administration recently made methane reduction one of its top
climate priorities. But as Deborah explains, methane has some
peculiar physical and financial characteristics that make curbing it
much easier said than done. (Originally broadcast in October 2019.)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5aHPb2KIFU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5aHPb2KIFU</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[Military Council on Climate Change - video interview]<br>
<b>Climatizing Security: Protecting Americans in the Age of Climate
Change</b><br>
Mar 2, 2021<br>
Cimatico<br>
Sherri Goodman discusses the implications of climate change on
national security. She gives an overview of climate threat
multipliers and how it affects the military. She talks about the
roles of international institutions and the US military in managing
climate security risks and advancing clean energy. She also analyzes
the implications of Biden’s new executive order.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H8AFWGcICM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H8AFWGcICM</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[erudite title]<br>
<b>Game Theory and Climate Change Hardcover </b>– Illustrated,
April 3, 2018<br>
by Parkash Chander (Author)<br>
Despite the growing consensus on the need for action to counteract
climate change, complex economic and political forces have so far
prevented international actors from making much headway toward
resolving the problem. Most approaches to climate change are based
in economics and environmental science; in this book, Parkash
Chander argues that we can make further progress on the climate
change impasse by considering a third approach―game theory.<br>
<br>
Chander shows that a game-theoretic approach, which offers insight
into the nature of interactions between sovereign countries behaving
strategically and the kinds of outcomes such interactions produce,
can illuminate how best to achieve international agreements in
support of climate-change mitigation strategies. Game Theory and
Climate Change develops a conceptual framework with which to analyze
climate change as a strategic or dynamic game, bringing together
cooperative and noncooperative game theory and providing practical
analyses of international negotiations. Chander offers economic and
game-theoretic interpretations of both the Kyoto Protocol and the
Paris Agreement and argues that the Paris Agreement may succeed
where the Kyoto Protocol failed. Finally, Chander discusses the
policy recommendations his framework generates, including a global
agreement to support development of cleaner technologies on a global
scale.<br>
<br>
Review<br>
Written exceptionally clearly, this book lays out a novel theory of
cooperative games and coalition formation as it applies to
environmental problems―and in the process makes significant progress
in reconciling cooperative and noncooperative game theory. --
Benjamin Ho, Vassar College<br>
<br>
Climate change is an extraordinarily challenging problem, partly
because of its global commons nature. For this reason, game theory
can bring valuable insights to considerations of alternative public
policies, as well as to international negotiations among the
countries of the world. In Game Theory and Climate Change, Parkash
Chander adds in significant ways to the relevant scholarly
literature at the interface of climate change, economics, and game
theory. -- Robert N. Stavins, Harvard University<br>
<br>
In this important and timely book, Chander, a leading environmental
economist and game theorist, systematically develops a set of
game-theoretic solutions to the grand challenge of global climate
change. He convincingly demonstrates the value of integrating
insights from both cooperative and noncooperative games, and the
importance of side payments in improving international climate
agreements. He advances important solution concepts such as subgame
perfect agreements and incorporates important real-world features,
such as heterogeneity across nations. I strongly recommend the book
to researchers as well as practitioners interested in international
climate negotiations. -- Jinhua Zhao, Michigan State University<br>
<br>
The book will interest PhD students and game-theory experts.
Recommended. ― Choice<br>
<br>
This is a timely book, interpreting climate change negotiations in
terms of game theory<br>
concepts. The content of the book is based on a stream of papers
published by the<br>
author over more than 20 years. The book is aimed at economists who
use finely crafted<br>
mathematical models to explore possible solutions to complex social
and environmental<br>
problems. The extensive bibliography will be helpful to any newcomer
in the field<br>
of environmental economics. -- Alain B. Haurie ― MathSciNet<br>
<p><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 -
March 8, 2012 </b></font><br>
<p> In a syndicated column, former Delaware Republican Party
official Michael Stafford notes:<br>
<br>
"The far-right’s capture of the GOP has gone largely unchallenged
by more responsible voices within the Party. Jon Huntsman, for
example, was the sole presidential candidate willing to directly
confront the prevailing [right-wing] orthodoxy on climate and
evolution. Perhaps this isn’t surprising, given the viciousness of
the attacks directed at dissenters. The passion for purging and
purity, and the primaries that resemble nothing so much as heresy
trials, highlight a critical fact about the far-right. In
Conservative Wonderland, dissent--thoughtcrime--is the political
version of a capital offense."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://themoderatevoice.com/140941/gop-stuck-in-a-conservative-wonderland/">http://themoderatevoice.com/140941/gop-stuck-in-a-conservative-wonderland/</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/greenfront/2012/03/michael-stafford-gop-stuck-in-a-conservative-wonderland-.html">http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/greenfront/2012/03/michael-stafford-gop-stuck-in-a-conservative-wonderland-.html</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/<br>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
*** Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not
carry images or attachments which may originate from remote
servers. A text-only message can provide greater privacy to the
receiver and sender.<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial
purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>