<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+2"><i><b>September 10, 2021</b></i></font><br>
</p>
<font color="#0000ff">[Clips from the Guardian - while not a
scientist, Monbiot is very well informed and strongly opinionated]
</font><br>
<b>Earth’s tipping points could be closer than we think. Our current
plans won’t work</b><br>
George Monbiot -- 9 Sep 2021<br>
If there’s one thing we know about climate breakdown, it’s that it
will not be linear, smooth or gradual. Just as one continental plate
might push beneath another in sudden fits and starts, causing
periodic earthquakes and tsunamis, our atmospheric systems will
absorb the stress for a while, then suddenly shift. Yet, everywhere,
the programmes designed to avert it are linear, smooth and gradual.<br>
<br>
Current plans to avoid catastrophe would work in a simple system
like a washbasin, in which you can close the tap until the inflow is
less than the outflow. But they are less likely to work in complex
systems, such as the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere. Complex
systems seek equilibrium. When they are pushed too far out of one
equilibrium state, they can flip suddenly into another. A common
property of complex systems is that it’s much easier to push them
past a tipping point than to push them back. Once a transition has
happened, it cannot realistically be reversed...<br>
- -<br>
Climate policies commit us to a calamitous 2.9C of global heating,
but catastrophic changes can occur at even 1.5C or 2C<br>
A common property of complex systems is that it’s much easier to
push them past a tipping point than to push them back. Once a
transition has happened, it cannot realistically be reversed...<br>
- -<br>
The old assumption that the Earth’s tipping points are a long way
off is beginning to look unsafe. A recent paper warns that the
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation – the system that
distributes heat around the world and drives the Gulf Stream – may
now be “close to a critical transition”. This circulation has
flipped between “on” and “off” states several times in prehistory,
plunging northern Europe and eastern North America into unbearable
cold, heating the tropics, disrupting monsoons.<br>
<br>
Other systems could also be approaching their thresholds: the West
and East Antarctic ice sheets, the Amazon rainforest, and the Arctic
tundra and boreal forests, which are rapidly losing the carbon they
store, driving a spiral of further heating. Earth systems don’t stay
in their boxes. If one flips into a different state, it could
trigger the flipping of others. Sudden changes of state might be
possible with just 1.5C or 2C of global heating.<br>
<br>
A common sign that complex systems are approaching tipping points is
rising volatility: they start to flicker. The extreme weather in
2021 – the heat domes, droughts, fires, floods and cyclones – is,
frankly, terrifying. If Earth systems tip as a result of global
heating, there will be little difference between taking inadequate
action and taking no action at all. A miss is as good as a mile.<br>
- - <br>
Even when all the promised technofixes and offsets are counted,
current policies commit us to a calamitous 2.9C of global heating.
To risk irreversible change by proceeding at such a leisurely pace,
to rely on undelivered technologies and nonexistent capacities: this
is a formula for catastrophe.<br>
<br>
If Earth systems cross critical thresholds, everything we did and
everything we were – the learning, the wisdom, the stories, the art,
the politics, the love, the hate, the anger and the hope – will be
reduced to stratigraphy. It’s not a smooth and linear transition we
need. It’s a crash course.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/09/earths-tipping-points-closer-current-climate-plans-wont-work-global-heating">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/09/earths-tipping-points-closer-current-climate-plans-wont-work-global-heating</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font color="#0000ff">[from very recent reports from NYT]</font><br>
<b>Extreme Weather and Climate Updates</b><br>
Sept. 9, 2021<br>
This summer was hotter than the Dust Bowl summer, NOAA says.<br>
Five states — California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Utah — reported
their warmest summers on record, the agency said. <br>
<blockquote>-- Nearly all power has been restored in New Orleans,
where at least 10 people died of excess heat after Ida.<br>
-- Democrats Want a ‘Climate Corps.’ They Just Can’t Agree How to
Create It.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/09/us/climate-change">https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/09/09/us/climate-change</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><font color="#0000ff"><br>
</font></p>
<font color="#0000ff">[Nolke is a creative using light humor in
sarcastic dialogs with herself - this is her first on global
warming]</font><br>
<b>Fighting Climate Change (funny!)</b><br>
Sep 9, 2021<br>
Julie Nolke<br>
We are dead set on a greener future, let us show you how...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZecqlWBUvU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZecqlWBUvU</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<font color="#0000ff">[VICE News - often cynical commentary seems
spot on - from a podcast]</font><br>
<b>Earth’s On Fire and We’re Arguing About Cheeseburgers, So That’s
Great | The Couch Report</b><br>
Jul 26, 2021<br>
VICE News<br>
Greg Walters enters the climate fray which now has... fire tornados.
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCWM-y7ew7g">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCWM-y7ew7g</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><font color="#0000ff"><br>
</font></p>
<font color="#0000ff">[Notice the power of words in "Beliefs &
Attitudes and Messaging"]</font><br>
CLIMATE NOTE · Dec 1, 2020<br>
<b>Should it be called “natural gas” or “methane”?</b><br>
- -<br>
How much does natural gas benefit from its name, which includes the
word “natural”? To answer this question, we conducted an experiment
to investigate the public’s emotions and associations regarding the
terms “natural gas” and “methane.” We randomly assigned respondents
to one of four conditions in which each respondent was asked to rate
their positive and negative feelings (affect) about one of the
following four terms: “natural gas,” “natural methane gas,”
“methane,” or “methane gas.” <br>
<br>
We found that the term “natural gas” evokes much more positive
feelings than do any of the three methane terms. Conversely, the
terms “methane” and “methane gas” evoke much more negative feelings
than does “natural gas.” ...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/should-it-be-called-natural-gas-or-methane/">https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/should-it-be-called-natural-gas-or-methane/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<font color="#0000ff">[Yale academic studies on disinformation and
opinion manipulation]</font><br>
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE · Sep 9, 2021<br>
<b>Different names for “natural gas” influence public perception of
it</b><br>
By Karine Lacroix, Matthew Goldberg, Abel Gustafson, Seth Rosenthal
and Anthony Leiserowitz<br>
Recently, we released results from an experiment in which we
investigated how Republicans and Democrats respond to the terms
“natural gas,” “natural methane gas,” “methane,” and “methane gas.”
We found that both Democrats and Republicans had the most positive
feelings about “natural gas” and the most negative feelings about
“methane” and “methane gas.”<br>
<br>
However, some scientists and advocates have used two other terms for
natural gas: “fossil gas” and “fracked gas.” So we extended our
original experiment to investigate the effects of these terms as
well.<br>
<br>
Unlike our first experiment (which found similar response patterns
among Democrats and Republicans) our new study found that the two
parties have widely divergent responses about “fossil gas” and
“fracked gas.” Importantly, Republicans had more positive feelings
about “fossil gas” and “fracked gas” than they did about “methane”
or “methane gas.”<br>
<br>
By contrast, Democrats had more negative feelings about “fossil gas”
and “fracked gas” than “methane” or “methane gas.” In other words,
these two terms (“fossil gas” and “fracked gas”) have polarizing,
opposite effects. They are perceived slightly more negatively by
Democrats than other terms, but are actually perceived as positive
terms by Republicans.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/note_figure1-768x602.png">https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/note_figure1-768x602.png</a><br>
Next, following the design of our first experiment, we asked
respondents: “When you think of [fossil gas / fracked gas], what is
the first [then second, then third] word or phrase that comes to
your mind?” Each participant could provide up to three such
associations.<br>
<br>
As with the positive and negative feeling ratings above, this
measure of associations also finds that the terms “fossil gas” and
“fracked gas” are more politically polarized than “natural gas” and
“methane gas” as described in our first study.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/fossil_figure2-1-1024x678.png">https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/fossil_figure2-1-1024x678.png</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/fracked_figure3-1-1024x706.png">https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/fracked_figure3-1-1024x706.png</a><br>
Although Democrats most often think of pollution when they see the
words “fossil gas” and “fracked gas,” Republicans most often think
of gas, energy, and the word natural.<br>
<br>
Taken together, the findings from the two experiments indicate that
both Democrats and Republicans have more positive feelings towards
“natural gas” than “methane” or “methane gas.” However, the terms
“fossil gas” and “fracked gas” produced larger partisan differences
than any of the other terms we tested. Democrats felt slightly more
negative, while Republicans felt much more positive about these two
terms compared to the methane-related terms.<br>
<br>
Overall, we find that the terms “methane” and “methane gas” are
perceived as bad by both Democrats and Republicans. By contrast, the
terms “fossil gas” and “fracked gas” have contradictory effects
among Democrats (who perceive them as bad) and Republicans (who
perceive them as good).<br>
<br>
This line of research helps unpack the influence of the “terms of
debate” used in public and political discourse. And importantly, it
finds that the terms used sometimes have large differences in
interpretation and meaning, both overall and among particular
subgroups.<br>
<br>
Strategically, campaigners seeking to reduce American reliance on
this fossil fuel may find some additional value in using the terms
“fossil gas” and “fracked gas” among Democrats, as Democrats (and
perhaps advocates themselves) perceive these terms slightly more
negatively than all the other names for this fossil fuel. However,
using these same terms may actually be counterproductive with
Republicans, who currently interpret these terms opposite to the way
advocates intend.<br>
<br>
The peer-reviewed article is available here to those with a
subscription to the Journal of Environmental Psychology. If you
would like to request a copy, please send an email to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:climatechange@yale.edu">climatechange@yale.edu</a> with the subject line: Request Natural Gas
Paper.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/testing-other-names-for-natural-gas/">https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/testing-other-names-for-natural-gas/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<font color="#0000ff">[ dire video conjectures 20 min version]</font><br>
<b>Short Worst-case Climate Scenario</b><br>
Sep 9, 2021<br>
Peter Carter<br>
Climate change indicators are tracking the worst-case scenario. A
short version (half as long) as the recent full length study that
was explained in detail.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEWXjagRwAk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEWXjagRwAk</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font color="#0000ff">[Language]</font><br>
<b>Enough With The Climate Jargon: Scientists Aim For Clearer
Messages On Global Warming</b><br>
September 8, 20215<br>
Rebecca Hersher at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C.,<br>
<br>
A new study finds that common climate change terms can be confusing
to the public. That includes phrases that describe the transition
from fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy. Here, wind turbines
operate near a coal-fired power plant in Germany.<br>
Ina Fassbender /AFP via Getty Images<br>
Here's a sentence that's basically unintelligible to most people:
Humans must mitigate global warming by pursuing an unprecedented
transition to a carbon neutral economy.<br>
<br>
A recent study found that some of the most common terms in climate
science are confusing to the general public. The study tested words
that are frequently used in international climate reports, and it
concluded that the most confusing terms were "mitigation," "carbon
neutral" and "unprecedented transition."<br>
<br>
"I think the main message is to avoid jargon," says Wändi Bruine de
Bruin, a behavioral scientist at the University of Southern
California and the lead author of the study. "That includes words
that may seem like everyone should understand them."<br>
<br>
For example, participants in the study mixed up the word
"mitigation," which commonly refers to efforts that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, with the word "mediation," which is a way
to resolve disputes. And even simple terms such as "carbon" can be
misleading, the study found. Sometimes, carbon is shorthand for
carbon dioxide. Other times, it's used to refer to multiple
greenhouse gases.<br>
<br>
Article continues after sponsor message<br>
<br>
"As experts in a particular field, we may not realize which of the
words that we're using are jargon," says Bruine de Bruin.<br>
<br>
The study is the latest indication that scientists need to do a
better job communicating about global warming, especially when the
intended audience is the general public.<br>
<br>
Clear climate communication gets more important every day because
climate change is affecting every part of life on Earth. Nurses,
doctors, farmers, teachers, engineers and business executives need
reliable, accessible information about how global warming is
affecting their patients, crops, students, buildings and businesses.<br>
<br>
And extreme weather this summer — from floods to fires, hurricanes
to droughts — underscores the urgency of clear climate
communication.<br>
<br>
"I think more and more people are getting concerned because of the
extreme weather events that we're seeing around us," says Bruine de
Bruin. "I hope that this study is useful to climate scientists, but
also to journalists and anybody who communicates about climate
science."<br>
<br>
Better communication is a mandate for the team of scientists
currently working on the next National Climate Assessment, which is
the most comprehensive, public-facing climate change report for the
U.S. The fifth edition of the assessment comes out in late 2023.<br>
<br>
"You shouldn't need an advanced degree or a decoder ring to figure
out a National Climate Assessment," says Allison Crimmins, the
director of the assessment.<br>
<br>
Crimmins says one of her top priorities is to make the information
in the next U.S. report clear to the general public. Climate
scientists and people who communicate about climate science have a
responsibility to think about the terminology they use. "While the
science on climate change has advanced, so has the science of
climate communication, especially how we talk about risk," she says.<br>
<br>
Crimmins says one way to make the information clearer is to present
it in many different ways. For example, a chapter on drought could
include a dense, technical piece of writing with charts and graphs.
That section would be intended for scientists and engineers. But the
same information could be presented as a video explaining how
drought affects agriculture in different parts of the U.S., and a
social media post with an even more condensed version of how climate
change is affecting drought.<br>
<br>
The United Nations has also tried to make its climate change reports
more accessible.<br>
<br>
The most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change was more than 3,900 pages long and highly technical,
but it also included a two-page summary that stated the main points
in simple language, such as, "It is unequivocal that human influence
has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land."<br>
<br>
But even the simple summary is rife with words that can be
confusing. For example, one of the so-called headline statements
from the IPCC report is, "With further global warming, every region
is projected to increasingly experience concurrent and multiple
changes in climatic impact-drivers." Basically, the climate will
keep changing everywhere as Earth gets hotter.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.npr.org/2021/09/08/1033362163/enough-with-the-climate-jargon-scientists-aim-for-clearer-messages-on-global-war">https://www.npr.org/2021/09/08/1033362163/enough-with-the-climate-jargon-scientists-aim-for-clearer-messages-on-global-war</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff">[The news archive - looking back - six years
ago]</font><br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
September 10, 2015</b></font><br>
The New York Times reports on severe wildfires in California.<br>
The air and soot are effectively trapped in a geographic bowl for
much of the summer, and the lack of wind and rain has made it
impossible for things to clear out.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/fires-in-west-leave-residents-gasping-on-the-soot-left-behind.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/fires-in-west-leave-residents-gasping-on-the-soot-left-behind.html</a>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<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. This is a hobby production curated by Richard
Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain 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>