<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2"><i><b>November 30, 2021</b></i></font><br>
<p><i>[ 3 min video clips from new movie of metaphorical sarcasm -
on Netflix Dec 24th ]</i><br>
<b>DON'T LOOK UP Trailer 2 (2021)</b><br>
Nov 16, 2021<br>
ONE Media - Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Timothée
Chalamet, Ariana Grande, Meryl Streep - © 2021 - Netflix<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISt6u1_gZcE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISt6u1_gZcE</a><br>
</p>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
<i>[ any mother is an expert ]</i><br>
<b>How Cate Blanchett Explains Climate Change to Her Teenage Kids:
‘It’s a Terrible Conversation to Have’</b><br>
by ARIELLE TSCHINKEL<br>
NOVEMBER 29, 2021 <br>
Parents with kids of any age know that raising teenagers is always
an adventure, but doing so amid several distinct global crises —
including dual pandemics of COVID-19 and a nationwide reckoning with
systemic racism, the rise of mis- and disinformation on social
media, and the worsening climate crisis — and it’s enough to make
any parent want to curl up in the fetal position and weep
silently....<br>
- -<br>
In a new interview with PORTER, Net-a-Porter’s digital title, Cate
Blanchett explained how she’s tackling such tough topics with her
four children, all of whom are 20 and under. Naturally, she’s doing
so with a hefty dose of humor, but Blanchett is keeping it real,
revealing that talking about climate change is “a terrible
conversation to have with your 13-year-old.”<br>
<br>
The actress, a longtime environmental activist, shared why it’s so
important for her to discuss real world issues with her four
children: her sons Dashiell, 20, Roman, 17, Ignatius, 13, and
six-year-old daughter, Edith — particularly as she promotes her
forthcoming Netflix movie, Don’t Look Up, a political satire.
“People have to vote and exercise their power,” she says. “I’m
sounding like I’m on a soapbox, which I’m not interested in, but
it’s important to not give in. I’m not giving up hope. As I say to
my kids [on climate change], if we’re going out, how do we choose to
go out? It’s a terrible conversation to have with your 13-year-old,
isn’t it? But anyway. We do laugh around the dinner table. That’s
what’s good about Adam [McKay, the director of Don’t Look Up]’s
film. You have to laugh.”<br>
<br>
All jokes aside, though, Blanchett is serious about the gravity of
global climate change. “Everyone is trying to be positive, talking
about 1.5 degrees of global warming. But 1.5 would still be
disastrous. We need to be fucking scared… and demand change. Be
collectively courageous enough to face that fear and do something
about it.”<br>
<br>
Even though there’s a wide age range between her four kids,
Blanchett is all about having open and honest conversations about
the importance of media scrutiny and not immediately believing every
salacious headline or juicy tweet. “[We talk about it] a lot,” she
says. “Because so much of our so-called information comes through
social media. I’m old enough to have been taught at school what a
primary, secondary and tertiary source is. I say to the children
when they mention something, ‘Where did you read it? Who has
[authenticated] that? You have to learn how to read an image and
article. And if you’re going to share something, you’d better make
sure you have checked the sources.'”<br>
<br>
As expected, she shares that her kids react the way any kids of
their ages might. “Of course, they roll their eyes,” she admits.
“But when you hear them talk to their friends, I think they’re
responsible. My son is studying physics and philosophy, so he is
really interesting to talk to about [technology]. I don’t want to
become a separated generation, because I also feel responsible for
the landscape he is about to emerge into as an adult.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/2512328/cate-blanchett-climate-change-conversation-teenage-kids/">https://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/2512328/cate-blanchett-climate-change-conversation-teenage-kids/</a>
<br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ partial text of the interview -- for fashion pictures go to
the website
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.net-a-porter.com/en-sg/porter/article-275108dccf076ff6">https://www.net-a-porter.com/en-sg/porter/article-275108dccf076ff6</a>
]</i><br>
Net-A-Porter<br>
<b>LEADING LIGHT</b><br>
Few actors have the cachet of CATE BLANCHETT, but what really drives
the multi-Oscar-winning star these days? She talks to AJESH PATALAY
about choosing projects that provoke, overcoming parenting
challenges and why she’s not interested in ‘winning’ the scene<br>
When Cate Blanchett finds her groove, it’s like a wind catching in
her sails – and a wonderful thing to behold.<br>
- -<br>
Five minutes later, we’re on to climate change and Blanchett is
firing on all cylinders. The subject is her next release, <b>Don’t
Look Up</b>, a boisterous satire from writer/director Adam McKay
about two astronomers (played by Leonardo DiCaprio, himself a fierce
advocate for climate action, and Jennifer Lawrence) who try to warn
mankind about an approaching comet that will destroy Earth.
Everyone, from clickbait pundits and tech billionaires to inept
presidents, is subject to ridicule in a story that becomes an
obvious metaphor for global warming. Blanchett plays a TV talk-show
host, a model of artificiality with bleached-blonde hair, blinding
white teeth and impossibly bronzed skin. “Actually, it’s a revolting
moment when you wash that makeup off and see the sludge going [down
the drain],” she recalls. “It’s quite confronting.”<br>
<br>
On the environmental matters that inform the film, she doesn’t sugar
any pills. “Everyone is trying to be positive, talking about 1.5
degrees of global warming,” she says. “But 1.5 would still be
disastrous. We need to be fucking scared… and demand change; be
collectively courageous enough to face that fear and do something
about it.” The movie, for all its doomsday messaging, is actually a
laugh a minute. And there’s a particular thrill in seeing so many
Hollywood stars onscreen at the same time. One pivotal scene in the
White House Situation Room brings together five Oscar winners and
one Oscar nominee: Blanchett, DiCaprio, Lawrence, Meryl Streep (who
plays a catastrophically useless president), Mark Rylance and Jonah
Hill.<br>
“I’m not giving up HOPE. As I say to my kids [on climate change], if
we’re going out, how do we CHOOSE to go out? It’s a TERRIBLE
conversation to have with your 13-year-old, isn’t it?”...<br>
- -<br>
“In acting, people talk about [how] to ‘WIN’ the scene. No, we have
to MAKE the scene come ALIVE”...<br>
- - <br>
She also sees how polarized – and mired by point-scoring – public
discourse has become. “I’m very sad about the loss of genuine
debate,” she says, “where leaders, public intellectuals and everyday
citizens try to find common ground, try to understand the issue,
rather than try to win… Even in acting, people talk about [how] to
‘win’ the scene. No, we have to make the scene come alive. And we
might have to lose a bit here, win a bit there.”<br>
<br>
Given how social media is sharpening the debate, I wonder how much
that comes up in conversations with her teenage children Dashiell,
Roman and Ignatius, and her youngest, Edith. “A lot,” she says.
“Because so much of our so-called information comes through social
media. I’m old enough to have been taught at school what a primary,
secondary and tertiary source is. I say to the children when they
mention something, ‘Where did you read it? Who has [authenticated]
that? You have to learn how to read an image and article. And if
you’re going to share something, you’d better make sure you have
checked the sources.’ Of course, they roll their eyes. But when you
hear them talk to their friends, I think they’re responsible. My son
is studying physics and philosophy, so he is really interesting to
talk to about [technology]. I don’t want to become a separated
generation, because I also feel responsible for the landscape he is
about to emerge into as an adult.”...<br>
- -<br>
“I say to the CHILDREN… ‘If you’re going to share something [on
social media], you’d better make sure you have checked the SOURCES.’
Of course, they ROLL their eyes. But I think they’re responsible”<br>
- -<br>
<b>‘Don’t Look Up’ </b>is in cinemas from December 10 and on
Netflix from December 24. ‘Nightmare Alley’ is in cinemas from
December 17 (US) and January 21 (UK)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.net-a-porter.com/en-sg/porter/article-275108dccf076ff6">https://www.net-a-porter.com/en-sg/porter/article-275108dccf076ff6</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<p><b>DON'T LOOK UP Trailer 2 (2021)</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISt6u1_gZcE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISt6u1_gZcE</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Changes to our planet ]</i><br>
<b>Major ocean current is accelerating alongside global warming</b><br>
ByAndrei Ionescu<br>
Earth.com staff writer<br>
A new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change has found
that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), the only ocean current
that circumnavigates the entire planet, is flowing faster due to
climate change. By using satellite measurements of sea-surface
height, and data collected by Argo, a global network of ocean
floats, an international team of researchers managed to detect a
previously hidden trend in Southern Ocean upper layer velocity.<br>
<br>
The ACC surrounds Antarctica and separates cold water in the south
from warmer subtropical water in the north. Recently, this warm part
of the Southern Ocean is getting even warmer due to human
activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. Since this ocean warming pattern can influence the
climate all over the globe, it is highly important to understand its
dynamics.<br>
- -<br>
According to the researchers, it is very likely that the speed of
the current will increase even more as the Southern Ocean continues
to warm up due to human-induced climate change. Urgent measures need
to be taken in order to curb this process and thus protect a<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.earth.com/news/major-ocean-current-is-accelerating-alongside-global-warming/">https://www.earth.com/news/major-ocean-current-is-accelerating-alongside-global-warming/</a>
<p>- - <br>
</p>
<i>[ research paper from nature climate change ]</i><br>
<b>Ocean warming and accelerating Southern Ocean zonal flow</b><br>
Jia-Rui Shi, Lynne D. Talley, Shang-Ping Xie, Qihua Peng & Wei
Liu <br>
Nature Climate Change - Published: 29 November 2021<br>
Abstract<br>
<blockquote>The Southern Ocean (>30° S) has taken up a large
amount of anthropogenic heat north of the Subantarctic Front (SAF)
of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC). Poor sampling before
the 1990s and decadal variability have heretofore masked the
ocean’s dynamic response to this warming. Here we use the
lengthening satellite altimetry and Argo float records to show
robust acceleration of zonally averaged Southern Ocean zonal flow
at 48° S–58° S. This acceleration is reproduced in a hierarchy of
climate models, including an ocean-eddy-resolving model.
Anthropogenic ocean warming is the dominant driver, as large
(small) heat gain in the downwelling (upwelling) regime north
(south) of the SAF causes zonal acceleration on the northern flank
of the ACC and adjacent subtropics due to increased baroclinicity;
strengthened wind stress is of secondary importance. In Drake
Passage, little warming occurs and the SAF velocity remains
largely unchanged. Continued ocean warming could further
accelerate Southern Ocean zonal flow.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01212-5">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01212-5</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Yes, words make a difference.. ] </i><br>
<b>Calling climate change a ‘crisis’ doesn’t do what you think</b><br>
Getting people to act takes more than strong words, a new study
says.<br>
Kate Yoder - Nov 29. 2021<br>
The way people talk about our overheating planet has been getting
pretty spicy. Bland, neutral-sounding phrases like global warming
are out; evocative words like crisis and emergency are in. Some
activists have argued that more urgent language will jolt people
into realizing that climate change is already here, prompting a
speedier effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions. As an opinion piece
in the Guardian once put it: “Our planet is in crisis. But until we
call it a crisis, no one will listen.”<br>
<br>
New research, however, casts doubt on this premise. A study recently
published in the journal Climatic Change is among the first to
examine the effects of using climate crisis and climate emergency.
It reported that reading these phrases “did not have any effect on
public engagement,” measured in terms of whether the words had
altered people’s emotions, their support for climate policy, or
their belief that action could make a difference.<br>
<br>
“We were pretty surprised that the terminology has such minimal
effects,” said Lauren Feldman, a professor of media studies at
Rutgers University and a coauthor of the study. Researchers found
one instance where the stronger phrasing backfired: News
organizations deploying climate emergency came across as slightly
less trustworthy, perhaps because it could sound alarmist...<br>
- -<br>
The phrase climate crisis started popping up everywhere — headlines,
TED talks, and in the U.S. Congress — and has recently strengthened
its foothold, making it into the Oxford English Dictionary last
month. The push behind climate emergency has taken a slightly
different path, with proponents demanding that governments declare a
state of emergency on climate. About 2,000 cities, town councils,
and countries around the world have already done so.<br>
<br>
At least two previous studies raised questions that climate crisis
might not be working as intended. In 2013, researchers found that
college students reading a passage about the climate crisis reported
the lowest levels of concern about the overheating planet, whereas
reading about climate disruption elicited the most. In 2020,
researchers comparing the effects of the terms climate crisis and
climate change on people in Taiwan found that the crisis framing
backfired among those with a conservative outlook. Feldman’s
research didn’t find any of these effects...<br>
- -<br>
The overall takeaway is that journalists and climate advocates might
be getting too hung up on specific words when the bigger picture is
much more important, Feldman said. What makes an article resonate
with people has more to do with its subject. News stories that
emphasize taking action tend to make people feel hopeful. Articles
that highlight solutions are also viewed as more credible, and
people are less resistant to them. Consider a recent piece from the
New York Times that explores how the Republican mayor of Carmel,
Indiana, built 140 roundabouts in town, in part to cut down on the
carbon emissions from cars waiting at stoplights...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://grist.org/language/calling-climate-change-a-crisis-or-emergency-stu/">https://grist.org/language/calling-climate-change-a-crisis-or-emergency-stu/</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ see the source matter ]</i><br>
<b>Upping the ante? The effects of “emergency” and “crisis” framing
in climate change news</b><br>
Lauren Feldman & P. Sol Hart <br>
Climatic Change volume 169, Article number: 10 (2021) Cite this
article<br>
- -<br>
Abstract<br>
<blockquote>News organizations increasingly use the terms “climate
emergency” and “climate crisis” to convey the urgency of climate
change; yet, little is known about how this terminology affects
news audiences. This study experimentally examined how using
“climate emergency,” “climate crisis,” or “climate change” in
Twitter-based news stories influences public engagement with
climate change and news perceptions, as well as whether the
effects depend on the focus of the news (i.e., on climate impacts,
actions, or both impacts and actions) and on participants’
political ideology. Results showed no effect of terminology on
climate change engagement; however, “climate emergency” reduced
perceived news credibility and newsworthiness compared to “climate
change.” Both climate engagement and news perceptions were more
consistently affected by the focus of the stories: news about
climate impacts increased fear, decreased efficacy beliefs and
hope, and reduced news credibility compared to news about climate
actions. No interactions with political ideology were found.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03219-5">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03219-5</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Book promotion "Dark Persuasion" ] </i><br>
<b>Dark Persuasion - The History of Brainwashing from Pavlov to
Social Media</b><br>
Oct 30, 2021<br>
University of California Television (UCTV)<br>
Joel Dimsdale discusses his latest book “Dark Persuasion: A History
of Brainwashing from Pavlov to Social Media,” which traces the
evolution of brainwashing from its beginnings in torture and
religious conversion into the age of neuroscience and social media.
Dimsdale is distinguished professor emeritus in the Department of
Psychiatry at UC San Diego. [11/2021] [Show ID: 37324]<br>
<blockquote>00:00 - Start<br>
01:46 - Main Presentation<br>
47:48 - Q&A<br>
</blockquote>
Please Note: Knowledge about health and medicine is constantly
evolving. This information may become out of date...<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWl8FXhdEio">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWl8FXhdEio</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
<i>[ buy the book ]</i><br>
<b>Dark Persuasion: A History of Brainwashing from Pavlov to Social
Media Hardcover – August 10, 2021</b><br>
by Joel E. Dimsdale (Author)<br>
- -<br>
A "highly readable and compelling" account (Science) of
brainwashing’s pervasive role in the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries<br>
<br>
“Riveting. . . . Dimsdale . . . shows how the art of dark persuasion
a generation ago led almost inevitably to today’s misinformation,
cyberbullying and cultlike behavior on the Internet.”—Dina
Temple-Raston, Washington Post<br>
<br>
This gripping book traces the evolution of brainwashing from its
beginnings in torture and religious conversion into the age of
neuroscience and social media. When Pavlov introduced scientific
approaches, his research was enthusiastically supported by Lenin and
Stalin, setting the stage for major breakthroughs in tools for
social, political, and religious control. <br>
<br>
Tracing these developments through many of the past century’s major
conflagrations, Dimsdale narrates how when World War II erupted,
governments secretly raced to develop drugs for interrogation.
Brainwashing returned to the spotlight during the Cold War in the
hands of the North Koreans and Chinese. In response, a huge
Manhattan Project of the Mind was established to study memory
obliteration, indoctrination during sleep, and hallucinogens. Cults
used the techniques as well. Nobel laureates, university academics,
intelligence operatives, criminals, and clerics all populate this
shattering and dark story—one that hasn’t yet ended.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Persuasion-History-Brainwashing-Pavlov/dp/0300247176/ref=sr_1_1">https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Persuasion-History-Brainwashing-Pavlov/dp/0300247176/ref=sr_1_1</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ serious briefing from a year ago.... learn the physics of
heating ] </i><br>
<b>How do clouds affect global warming?</b><br>
Jan 22, 2021<br>
UT Physics Colloquium<br>
<b>How do clouds affect global warming?</b><br>
Jennifer Kay, University of Colorado at Boulder<br>
Physics Colloquium 2021-01-21<br>
Understanding the influence of clouds on global warming remains an
important unsolved research problem. Cloud feedbacks are often found
to be the largest uncertainty in global warming projections from
climate models. This talk presents an overview of this topic, with a
focus on recent observations, theory, and modeling results. After a
general introduction, experiments that disable cloud radiative
feedbacks or “lock the clouds” within a state‐of‐the‐art and
well‐documented climate model will be presented. Through comparison
of idealized greenhouse warming experiments with and without cloud
locking, the sign and magnitude cloud feedbacks can be quantified.
Global cloud feedbacks increase both global and Arctic warming by
around 25%. In contrast, disabling Arctic cloud feedbacks has a
negligible influence on both Arctic and global surface warming. Do
observations and theory support a positive global cloud feedback and
a weak Arctic cloud feedback? What are the implications especially
for greater-than-global Arctic warming?<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1VBCt8GLc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1VBCt8GLc</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Briefing about the Arctic -- from 2020 ]</i><br>
<b>Webinar: Arctic Extremes - The Frontlines of Global Warming</b><br>
May 11, 2020<br>
Woodwell Climate Research Center<br>
<br>
Presented by Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC)'s Rachael Treharne,
Tatiana Shestakova and Sue Natali. Introductory remarks by Heather
Goldstone, WHRC's Chief Communications Officer.<br>
<br>
The Arctic is warming faster than almost anywhere else on Earth and
often the changes with the biggest impact are not linear – they are
abrupt, acute shifts; extreme events. WHRC scientists Rachael
Treharne, Tatiana Shestakova, and Sue Natali will share their
experiences of tracking and studying extreme events in a rapidly
changing Arctic.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6oobe-7aVU&t=7s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6oobe-7aVU&t=7s</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[ yes, yes it is... text clips from a long essay -- Mother
Jones ]</i><br>
Keith Negley<br>
<b>Is Sucking Carbon Out of the Air the Solution to Our Climate
Crisis?</b><br>
Or just another Big Oil boondoggle?<br>
CLIVE THOMPSON - - NOV+DEC 2021 ISSUE<br>
- - <br>
A few scientists had theorized that one might do this using a new
process they dubbed Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (or Storage). You could sow endless cycles of
fast-growing trees or crops, burn that biomass to generate
electricity, capture the resulting CO2 from your plant’s
smokestack, and inject it deep into the ground (ideally amid
porous rock like basalt, which has oodles of tiny crevices that
CO2 molecules can populate). In theory, if you replaced thousands
of fossil fuel plants with BECCS plants, you could generate lots
of electricity and come out net negative because your biomass had
already, via photosynthesis, sucked a lot of carbon out of the
air—and now that carbon is buried. Sure enough, when scientists
incorporated BECCS into their models, it helped balance the books.
They could produce scenarios with lots and lots of power plants
that would begin to walk humanity back from the climatic abyss....<br>
- -<br>
If and when we manage to pull it off, removing mass quantities of
carbon will require an enormous number of DAC machines. To hit the
IPCC’s goal of 10 billion tons per year by midcentury, according
to a recent study in Science, you’d need 30,000 plants the size of
Carbon Engineering’s Texas facility. With the smaller Climeworks
or Global Thermostat units, you’d need 30 million, and with
Lackner’s trees, probably a lot more.<br>
<br>
Building carbon extractors on such a scale sounds almost
delusional. But Lackner counters that it’s really not, when you
consider other human endeavors. After all, he points out, “We are
building nearly 100 million cars and trucks a year.”...<br>
- -<br>
And finally, we have the energy paradox. The machines needed to
suck up 10 billion tons of CO2 each year would consume more than
half the world’s current energy supply, according to a 2019 study
in Nature. Using DAC to build a closed-loop cycle with synthetic
fuels would require even more energy, and a huge expansion of
solar and wind capacity. <br>
<br>
So why, environmentalists often wonder, would we bother to expend
all of that clean energy on DAC? Instead, why not just push hard
to electrify our economies and get rid of as many oil-burning
engines as we can, as fast as we can? The sooner we do so, the
less DAC we’ll need in the long run, says Lindsay Meiman, a
communications specialist with the environmental group 350.org.
“We have those solutions—we have them,” she says. “It’s about the
political will and investment and the priority.” The government
should prioritize investments in “free public transit to create
millions of jobs that will dismantle these current fossil fuel
projects.”<br>
<br>
“Once you start doing the numbers, you realize that it makes much
more sense to just eliminate most of your emissions,” says David
Morrow, research director at American University’s Institute for
Carbon Removal Law and Policy.<br>
<br>
Perhaps the biggest problem with the way DAC is now being rolled
out and subsidized, critics say, is that it lets fossil fuel
interests go on with business as usual. As Muffett sees it, the
petroleum giants regard partnerships with companies like Global
Thermostat and Carbon Engineering as a survival ploy. Polluters
spent the past few decades claiming they could capture CO2 from
smokestacks to make coal- and gas-powered electricity
emission-free, but they never did. Now they’re claiming we can
extract carbon from the sky. For fossil fuel firms, “any
technology that says, ‘Hey, we don’t have to stop emitting this
stuff—we can just find a way to make it disappear,’ is highly
desirable,” Muffett says.<br>
<br>
<b>7. A PROGRESSIVE CASE FOR CARBON-SUCKING</b><br>
Despite their deep skepticism, even many environmentalists
repulsed by the fossil fuel industry have a nagging question in
the back of their heads: What if carbon sequestration is
necessary? What if humankind can’t—or won’t—move fast enough on
renewables, and discovers later this century that the IPCC was
right: We simply have to get rid of that excess carbon?
Greenpeace’s Noël is hotly opposed to Big Oil and Gas. “We need to
have a political, financial, and cultural full-court press to
isolate the fossil fuel industry in all corners of life,” he
practically shouted at me over the phone. “In policy circles they
should not be allowed at the table. They should not be allowed to
advertise. They shouldn’t be invited to any serious meeting.” He
thinks they’re using DAC as a ruse: “The technology has been
captured, manipulated, utilized, thrown into a PR machine.”<br>
<br>
Yet still—still—Noël admits it’s probably a good idea for
governments to fund scientists and engineers to work on DAC
technologies. He’d like us to have the option in pocket, in case
it’s ever needed. “I have a 9-month-old daughter and we’re at 415
parts per million” of CO2, he says. Given the serious effects
we’re already seeing from climate change, Noël is deeply worried
about what it’ll look like decades from now if we fail to hit the
brakes on emissions. He’s fine with someone doing the work as long
as it’s “fully decoupled from the fossil fuel industry.” Other
environmentalists offered the same cautious approval. Morrow told
me carbon-sucking should be our last resort, to be used sparingly
only after we’ve shifted as much of the economy as possible toward
renewables: “The role that DAC can play is an important but
limited one, where we’re cleaning up stuff that we don’t have a
good way to clean up otherwise, or drawing down legacy carbon.”<br>
<br>
Lastly, the progressive argument insists that DAC isn’t our first
tool of choice. Before devoting major public funds to incentivize
it, we should first throw our subsidies at renewables. As for
sucking up carbon, we’d want to pursue as many low-tech,
nature-based techniques as possible. Just how far can we push
reforestation? Ocean sequestration—such as treating beaches with
chemicals that compel sand to suck up CO2 or growing plankton that
metabolizes it—could be explored more aggressively. And though
BECCS might be a boondoggle, farms do produce a lot of
biowaste—about 104 million tons a year—that can be used for
sequestration.<br>
<br>
But we still might need those DAC machines. When I first spoke
with Lackner, he argued that humanity had already blown far past
the ideal time to step away from oil and gas. “In 1980, we could
have said, ‘Let’s stop!’ And instead we procrastinated,” he told
me. We’ll be lucky if his technology works as well as he hopes.
When I visited his lab in the summer, it had the atmosphere of all
the tech startups I’ve ever visited: a lot of excitement, but no
guarantees. DAC is the classic industrial Wild West tale—nobody
has any idea who’ll win or whether winning is even possible.<br>
<br>
Yet Lackner is hopeful, in his dry and chill fashion. He took me
outside to a gravelly construction area where, later this year,
his team will install the first prototype of his next-generation
carbon-sucking tree. A cherry picker stood in the middle of the
ground. Lackner’s latest tree consists of a 30-foot stack of
sorbent disks. It may not look like much, he said, but neither did
windmills in the ’80s and ’90s, and look how powerful they are
today. “If we can pull wind energy out of the air,” he said, “we
can pull CO2 out.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/10/sucking-carbon-engineering-global-thermostat-co2-direct-air-capture-climeworks-solution-climate-crisis-big-oil-boondoggle-ipcc/">https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2021/10/sucking-carbon-engineering-global-thermostat-co2-direct-air-capture-climeworks-solution-climate-crisis-big-oil-boondoggle-ipcc/</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ high geek-factor science overview -- lots of math -- 47 min
video why we are over-heating ] <br>
</i><b>Global warming is larger in the latest climate models than in
their predecessors. Do we trust them?</b><br>
Jan 28, 2021<br>
UT Physics Colloquium<br>
Global warming is larger in the latest climate models than in their
predecessors. Do we trust them?<br>
Mark Zelinka, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory <br>
Physics Colloquium 2021-01-28<br>
<br>
How much will Earth warm in response to increased concentrations of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Answering this question is a key
goal of climate science, given its importance for society. CO2
quadrupling experiments routinely conducted by global climate
modeling centers around the world yield a wide range of climate
sensitivities to carbon dioxide. In this talk, I will discuss why
climate sensitivities in the latest state-of-the-art models are
substantially larger than in their predecessors. The primary culprit
is clouds: Planetary warming causes low-level clouds to become less
extensive and less reflective, inducing further warming – an
amplifying feedback that has strengthened in the latest models. This
stronger positive cloud feedback arises due to changes in model
physics and may be related to improved representation of cloud ice
and liquid water content. Given the prominence of low cloud feedback
in driving uncertainty in climate sensitivity, I will then discuss
our efforts to constrain the global marine low cloud feedback using
satellite observations of how low cloud properties respond to
meteorology. This work indicates that the observed sensitivity of
low clouds to their environmental controls is incompatible with very
high or very low values of climate sensitivity.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ society as a complex system -- and carbon capitalism is a
structural injustice - ] </i><br>
<b>London Annual Lecture 21 - Systemic, Structural, and
Institutional Injustice: What’s the difference?</b><br>
RoyIntPhilosophy<br>
The Royal Institute of Philosophy - London Annual Lecture 2021<br>
Sally Haslanger -- November 29, 2021<br>
'Systemic, Structural, and Institutional Injustice: What’s the
difference?<br>
<br>
The terms 'systemic injustice' and 'structural injustice' are often
used interchangeably and are often equated with 'institutional
injustice.' But in order to understand these different forms of
injustice, we should have a clear idea of what they are and how to
distinguish them. Using racism as a paradigm case, this talk will
sketch an account of society as a complex system and show how
relations that make up the structures are constituted by social
practices. This will help us locate some of the leverage points for
social change.<br>
<br>
Sally Haslanger is Ford Professor of Philosophy and Women’s and
Gender Studies at MIT. She has published in metaphysics,
epistemology, feminist theory, and critical race theory. Her work
links issues of social justice with contemporary work in
epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of
mind. Haslanger is deeply committed to promoting diversity in
philosophy and beyond. She was the founder and convener of the Women
in Philosophy Task Force, and co-founded PIKSI-Boston, a summer
philosophy institute for undergraduates from under-represented
groups. In 2013-4, she was the President of the Eastern Division of
the American Philosophical Association, and in 2015, she was elected
to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpQSxBCN40">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXpQSxBCN40</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
[The news archive - looking back]<br>
<font size="+1"><b>On this day in the history of global warming
November 30, 1999</b></font><br>
November 30, 1999: Exxon and Mobil complete their merger.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/30/deals/exxonmobil/">http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/30/deals/exxonmobil/</a><br>
<br>
<p>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/</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
moz-txt-link-freetext" 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>