<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2"><font face="Calibri"><i><b>November 19</b></i></font></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>, 2023</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font> <br>
<i>[ Marvel opinion in NYTimes ]</i><br>
<b>I’m a Climate Scientist. I’m Not Screaming Into the Void Anymore.</b><br>
Nov. 18, 2023<br>
By Kate Marvel<br>
Dr. Marvel, a climate scientist at the environmental nonprofit
Project Drawdown, was a lead author on the Fifth National Climate
Assessment.<br>
Two and a half years ago, when I was asked to help write the most
authoritative report on climate change in the United States, I
hesitated. Did we really need another warning of the dire
consequences of climate change in this country? The answer, legally,
was yes: Congress mandates that the National Climate Assessment be
updated every four years or so. But after four previous assessments
and six United Nations reports since 1990, I was skeptical that what
we needed to address climate change was yet another report.<br>
<br>
In the end, I said yes, but reluctantly. Frankly, I was sick of
admonishing people about how bad things could get. Scientists have
raised the alarm over and over again, and still the temperature
rises. Extreme events like heat waves, floods, and droughts are
becoming more severe and frequent, exactly as we predicted they
would. We were proved right. It didn’t seem to matter.<br>
<br>
Our report, which was released on Tuesday, contains more dire
warnings. There are plenty of new reasons for despair. Thanks to
recent scientific advances, we can now link climate change to
specific extreme weather disasters, and we have a better
understanding of how the feedback loops in the climate system can
make warming even worse. We can also now more confidently forecast
catastrophic outcomes if global emissions continue on their current
trajectory. But to me, the most surprising new finding in the Fifth
National Climate Assessment is this: There has been genuine
progress, too.I’m used to mind-boggling numbers, and there are many
of them in this report. Human beings have put about 1.6 trillion
tons of carbon in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution —
more than the weight of every living thing on Earth combined. But as
we wrote the report, I learned other, even more mind-boggling
numbers. In the last decade, the cost of wind energy has declined by
70 percent and solar has declined 90 percent. Renewables now make up
80 percent of new electricity generation capacity. Our country’s
greenhouse gas emissions are falling, even as our G.D.P. and
population grow.
<p>In the report, we were tasked with projecting future climate
change. We showed what the United States would look like if the
world warms by 2 degrees Celsius. It wasn’t a pretty picture: more
heat waves, more uncomfortably hot nights, more downpours, more
droughts. If greenhouse emissions continue to rise, we could reach
that point in the next couple of decades. If they fall a little,
maybe we can stave it off until the middle of the century. But our
findings also offered a glimmer of hope: If emissions fall
dramatically, as the report suggested they could, we may never
reach 2 degrees Celsius at all. For the first time in my career, I
felt something strange: optimism. And that simple realization was
enough to convince me that releasing yet another climate report
was worthwhile.</p>
Something has changed in the United States, and not just the
climate. State, local and tribal governments all around the country
have begun to take action. Some politicians now actually campaign on
climate change, instead of ignoring or lying about it. Congress
passed federal climate legislation — something I’d long regarded as
impossible — in 2022 as we turned in the first draft.<br>
<br>
And while the report stresses the urgency of limiting warming to
prevent terrible risks, it has a new message, too: We can do this.
We now know how to make the dramatic emissions cuts we’d need to
limit warming, and it’s very possible to do this in a way that’s
sustainable, healthy and fair. The conversation has moved on, and
the role of scientists has changed. We’re not just warning of danger
any more. We’re showing the way to safety.<br>
<br>
I was wrong about those previous reports: They did matter, after
all. While climate scientists were warning the world of disaster, a
small army of scientists, engineers, policymakers and others were
getting to work. These first responders have helped move us toward
our climate goals. Our warnings did their job.<br>
<br>
To limit global warming, we need many more people to get on board.
This will be hard: It will require large-scale changes in
infrastructure and behavior as well as removing carbon from the
atmosphere. And not everyone is on board yet. In particular, the
fossil fuel industry is still ignoring the science. Oil, gas and
coal companies already made plans for infrastructure that, if used
as intended, would cause the world to blow past the Paris agreement
target of 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next few decades.<br>
<br>
To prevent this, we need to reach those who haven’t yet been moved
by our warnings. I’m not talking about the fossil fuel industry
here; nor do I particularly care about winning over the small but
noisy group of committed climate deniers. But I believe we can reach
the many people whose eyes glaze over when they hear yet another
dire warning, or see another report like the one we just published.<br>
<br>
The reason is that now, we have a better story to tell. The evidence
is clear: Responding to climate change will not only create a better
world for our children and grandchildren, but it will also make the
world better for us right now.<br>
<br>
Eliminating the sources of greenhouse gas emissions will make our
air and water cleaner, our economy stronger and our quality of life
better. It could save hundreds of thousands or even millions of
lives across the country through air quality benefits alone. Using
land more wisely can both limit climate change and protect
biodiversity. Climate change most strongly affects communities that
get a raw deal in our society: people with low incomes, people of
color, children and the elderly. And climate action can be an
opportunity to redress legacies of racism, neglect and injustice.<br>
<br>
I could still tell you scary stories about a future ravaged by
climate change, and they’d be true, at least on the trajectory we’re
currently on. But it’s also true that we have a
once-in-human-history chance, not only to prevent the worst effects,
but to make the world better right now. It would be a shame to
squander this opportunity. So I don’t just want to talk about the
problems anymore. I want to talk about the solutions. Consider this
your last warning from me.<br>
Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at the environmental nonprofit
Project Drawdown, was a lead author on the Fifth National Climate
Assessment. She was previously a research scientist at Columbia
University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/opinion/climate-change-report-us.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/opinion/climate-change-report-us.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/opinion/climate-change-report-us.html?unlocked_article_code=1._Uw.P8n2.CZu2YCWy-Ejj&smid=url-share">https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/18/opinion/climate-change-report-us.html?unlocked_article_code=1._Uw.P8n2.CZu2YCWy-Ejj&smid=url-share</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Texas censors are screaming into the void ]</i><br>
<b>Texas rejects science textbooks with too much information about
climate change</b><br>
The Republican-majority education board also objected to books
portraying fossil fuel use in a less-than-positive light.<br>
Nov. 18, 2023<br>
By Clarissa-Jan Lim,<br>
After nearly a week of debate, the Texas Board of Education rejected
a number of proposed science textbooks for eighth graders on Friday.
The Republican-majority board raised a range of concerns about seven
of 12 proposed textbooks, most of which had to do with how the books
presented the climate crisis.<br>
<br>
Among the reasons the board rejected books: They had too much
information about the climate crisis; they were published by
companies with environmentally friendly policies; they portrayed
fossil fuel use in an insufficiently positive light, potentially
harming the state’s economy; and they included teachings about
evolution but not creationism.<br>
<br>
Certainly the decision is going to be cheered in some quarters.
Earlier this week, Wayne Christian, a member of the Texas Railroad
Commission, the top regulator of the state’s oil and gas industry,
railed against climate science, calling it the “woke environmental
agenda” and urging the board to approve books that promote fossil
fuels.<br>
<br>
The proposed textbooks need to adhere to new standards that mandate
eighth graders learn about the climate crisis. School districts in
the state are not limited to using books approved by the board, but
because all approved textbooks comply with state curriculum
standards, they are often the books chosen, The Texas Tribune
reports.<br>
<br>
Marisa Perez-Diaz, a Democratic board member, summed up the
potential influence of ideological and political dogma on education.
“My fear is that we will render ourselves irrelevant moving forward
when it comes to what publishers want to work with us and will help
us get proper materials in front of our young people,” Perez-Diaz
said at the meeting.<br>
<br>
Conservatives have long pushed textbook publishers to present
pseudoscientific concepts like “intelligent design” as equivalent to
well-established scientific theories. But as we’ve seen in the past
few years, Republican lawmakers are also waging a broader war on the
humanities, passing legislation that prohibits a comprehensive
teaching of race, gender and history in the U.S. and beyond.<br>
<br>
The targeting of public education has alarmed educators and parents.
And as we’ve seen time and time again, those most obviously harmed
by these policies are the students.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/msnbc/texas-science-textbooks-climate-change-rcna125841">https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/msnbc/texas-science-textbooks-climate-change-rcna125841</a><br>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
<i>[ looking for the titles of these books ]</i><br>
<b>Texas education board rejects climate change lessons in textbooks</b><br>
by: Ryan Chandler<br>
Posted: Nov 15, 2023<br>
<br>
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — The State Board of Education on Tuesday gave an
initial rejection to some science textbooks after concerns over
their lessons on climate change.<br>
<br>
Members of the 15-seat education policy committee voted on party
lines to withhold approval from numerous textbooks that recognize
fossil fuels as a cause of manmade climate change.<br>
<br>
Among the rejections were publisher Green Ninja’s middle school
science textbooks, which provides exercises that direct students to
write about the future changes to weather and climate. Another
publisher, EduSmart, was struck from the list for depictions that
one board member worried cast the oil and gas industry in a
“negative light.”<br>
<br>
“There’s an overemphasis on the evils of oil and gas and virtues of
renewables,” District 15 board member Aaron Kinsey said of another
textbook. Kinsey is a Midland Republican and CEO of the oilfield
services company American Patrols, which contracts with oil and gas
companies to provide aerial surveys.<br>
<br>
“I just think this Accelerate learning curriculum does a disservice
to our students because it only only presents one side,” Pearland
board member Julie Pickren said of another publisher. “A general
theme throughout their entire science curriculum is that climate
change is manmade. There’s no discussion or presenting different
theories.”<br>
<br>
“This is not something that’s debated in the scientific realm at
all, it’s just something that’s controversial in the political
realm,” KXAN Chief Meteorologist David Yeomans said. “Teaching
climate change to kids is the same as teaching them about gravity or
addition and subtraction. These are settled scientific facts. It’s
not being ‘anti’ anything.”<br>
<br>
Democrat Aicha Davis worries the board is protecting the image of
the oil and gas industry at the expense of objectivity.<br>
<br>
“Do you want pictures of children in oil fields?,” Davis
rhetorically asked the board on Wednesday. “We literally had that
discussion on making sure oil and gas is always seen positively… we
want to give students information, we want to give them knowledge…
we want them to know how to keep our earth here.”<br>
<br>
Publishers can now amend the language of their material to try and
secure approval in a final vote on Friday. School districts are not
required to use the materials approved by the board, but the board’s
selections have a heavy influence on curriculum both around the
state and across the country.<br>
<br>
As Davis explains, publishers cater to Texas’ requirements because
of the state’s large market of millions of students. Because of the
higher cost associated with printing multiple versions of textbooks,
other states often end up with the version Texas prefers.<br>
<br>
“We have to make sure we have really good standards and really good
textbooks here in Texas. It does influence what other states are
going to get as well,” Davis said.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-education-board-rejects-climate-change-lessons-in-textbooks/">https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-education-board-rejects-climate-change-lessons-in-textbooks/</a><br>
<p>- - <br>
</p>
<i>[ for this Carl Sagan lecture you may want to boost the playback
speed - actual lecture starts 9:30 ]</i><br>
<b>Bunyan Lecture 1993 - Carl Sagan</b><br>
Stanford Physics<br>
Oct 31, 2016 Bunyan Lectures<br>
VHS tape from 1993; cuts off suddenly at 2 hrs, 3min.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hez5MyKQIMs">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hez5MyKQIMs</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[ OPB transcript and audio play of mountains in my region of
the Pacific NW ]</i><br>
<b>The high-altitude impacts of climate change on Mount Rainier
and Mount Hood</b><br>
By Sheraz Sadiq (OPB)<br>
Oct. 5, 2023<br>
Broadcast: Wednesday, Oct. 11<br>
</p>
<p>Mount Rainier in Washington state is covered with nearly 30
square miles of glaciers and icy patches - more than Mount Hood,
Crater Lake and all other volcanic mountains combined, from
British Columbia to Northern California. But climate change is
taking a toll on Mount Rainier’s glaciers, according to a study
published in June. It found a 42% reduction in glacier area from
1896 to 2021, and officially removed Stevens glacier from the
park’s inventory. The situation appears worse for the glaciers at
Mount Hood, according to a new photographic survey completed last
month by the Oregon Glaciers Institute. It found that the seven
major glaciers at Mount Hood had receded an average of 60% over
the past 120 years, and that roughly a quarter of that loss
happened in just the last 20 years. Joining us to discuss the toll
climate change is taking on the ice cover in these iconic and
popular Northwest peaks are Scott Beason, a park geologist at
Mount Rainier National Park, and Anders Carlson, the president of
the Oregon Glaciers Institute.<br>
<br>
The following transcript was created by a computer and edited by a
volunteer:<br>
<br>
Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. Mount
Rainier is covered with nearly 30 square miles of glaciers and icy
patches, more than Mount Hood, Crater Lake, and all the other
volcanic mountains from British Columbia to northern California
combined. But climate change is taking a huge toll on Mount
Rainier’s glaciers according to a study published in June. It
found a 42% reduction in glacial area over the last 125 years. The
situation is even worse on Mount Hood, according to a photographic
survey that was just completed. We start with Scott Beason. He’s a
park geologist at Mount Rainier National Park. Welcome to the
show.<br>
<br>
Scott Beason: Hello.<br>
<br>
Miller: I want to start with some basics. What is a year in the
life of a healthy glacier like?<br>
<br>
Beason: It’s a good question. Glacier is a balance between
accumulation of snow and ablation, or melt, of the snow in the
summertime. So in the winter time, you get a massive accumulation
of snow. And in the summertime, you lose quite a bit of that snow
through processes like snow melt and the sun hitting the snow and
things like that. And when you get a period of time where there’s
enough snow that lingers around from year to year, the next year
you get another accumulation of snow, and then another year and
another year. And before you know it, it’s kind of like a layer
cake of snow. And that turns into a thing called firn, a year’s
accumulation of snow. And then enough time goes by and that turns
into glacial ice. It’s a situation where we have snow that
accumulates and does not melt. And then over those processes,
turns into a glacier.<br>
<br>
Miller: How does that compare to what’s happening on Mount Rainier
right now?<br>
<br>
Beason: What we’re seeing at Mount Rainier is that we’re getting
more rain falling than snow, and we’re getting less snow
accumulating. So in a given year, we expect to see a certain
amount of snow, and we’re seeing less of that. The glaciers of
Mount Rainier are in a situation where they’re not getting
recharged with the snow that they need to be. And we’re basically
losing glacial ice over time. We won’t have the recharge in snow,
and then the summer snow melt melts down into the glacial ice
underneath of it, and basically you’re losing the glacial mass
over time.<br>
<br>
Miller: The data that makes up the study that you recently
released goes back to 1896. Were glaciers shrinking at the turn of
the 20th century?<br>
<br>
Beason: Yeah actually, they were. From 1896 to the next survey
that we had, 1913, we did lose ice between those periods of time.
So we were losing ice for sure in that time. But the rate that
we’re seeing in the last decade or two has really accelerated
based on the historic data that we have.<br>
<br>
Miller: How much of that loss that we’re talking about is recent,
as opposed to 120 something years old?<br>
<br>
Beason: You’re looking at rates. So in the last six years, we’re
seeing a rate of about 2.5 times that estimated in the previous
period. That was from 2009 to 2015. And we go back from the 1896
period to the 2021 period, you see a rate loss of about 0.2 square
miles per year. And in the last period, it’s about 0.3. So it’s
about doubling that rate that we have had from the historic
period.<br>
<br>
Miller: And you get the sense that even that is accelerating?<br>
<br>
Beason: It is definitely accelerating.<br>
<br>
Miller: I mentioned that finding that more than 40% of glacial
area was lost between 1896 and 2021. But if I understand
correctly, that doesn’t include the depth or the thickness of the
ice. What happens if you include that third dimension, how much
volume has been lost?<br>
<br>
Beason: Volume can be really difficult to calculate in the glacier
just because it’s really hard to actually see through the glacier
itself. But when we look at the volume reduction, we’re seeing a
reduction of about 52% in that 125 year period. We’re definitely
seeing more ice melting when you add in that third dimension. The
math is more complicated, but definitely a lot of ice loss on the
mountain.<br>
<br>
Miller: The data in this latest study went up to 2021. Do you have
any sense for what’s happened in just the last two years?<br>
<br>
Beason: We didn’t really look at the last two years. We basically
do the survey whenever we have a good opportunity to get clear
satellite imagery and funding to do the surveys. Looking at and
talking to other researchers, there’s a couple other glaciers that
we’re looking at, we’ve basically removed them from our survey at
this point. So, the Van Trump Glacier and the Pyramid Glacier are
probably no longer considered a glacier in the park. Our survey
kept them in place just because we still saw evidence of the
glacier there. But since then, it’s just continual loss.<br>
<br>
Miller: Why do you do this? What are the many things that are at
stake when glaciers disappear?<br>
<br>
Beason: Glaciers are a source of clear, fresh, cold water that’s
provided to rivers in the park. There’s a lot of aquatic species
that depend on that cold water for their habitat. Bull Trout is
one example of that. There’s a study just recently done that
looked at the anticipated effects of climate change in the next
century, to see what would happen with the Bull Trout habitat as
we lose that glacial ice. It’s pretty stark for that species
specifically. They’re gonna lose their habitat. They’re gonna have
to move to different locations or they’re just gonna die out.<br>
<br>
The other thing that I have an interest in is a process called a
debris flow, where as you retreat, glacial ice, you’re leaving
behind sediment that is basically super steep, it’s not sorted, it
can fail any time. You get a surge of water or something that
happens in the glacier and it can pick up that material and
mobilize into what’s called a debris flow. Then the debris flows
can go downstream, affect park infrastructure, and really damage
old growth forests, infrastructure, it can affect people,
visitors, and the employees that work here at Mount Rainier.<br>
<br>
Miller: And they can be deadly, right?<br>
<br>
Beason: They can be. Thankfully so far, they have not been. There
was a debris flow in 2015 where we had a visitor that was taking a
video and it went right by them. And it was sort of terrifying
seeing that video. It’s cool seeing the process, but at the same
time, it was terrifying that they were that close to it.<br>
<br>
Miller: We are talking about climate change here, about specific
sites, in this case on Mount Rainier, being impacted by human
actions on a global scale. And obviously the biggest thing we can
do as a species is to stop burning fossil fuels. But are there
other specific interventions for saving glaciers?<br>
<br>
Beason: This question we get frequently is “what can we do with
glaciers in the park?” There isn’t a lot that we can really do.
Monitoring is what we’re really good at doing. In some locations
in Europe, they talk about putting tarps and stuff on glaciers.
But when you talk about 29 square miles of ice, that’s just not
feasible. Really, the long term solution is to look at climate
emissions and see how we can change those over time, watch and see
how it happens with the climate from there.<br>
<br>
Miller: Scott Beason, thanks very much.<br>
<br>
Beason: Thank you.<br>
<br>
Miller: For another perspective on melting glaciers, we turn now
to Anders Carlson. He is the president of the Oregon Glaciers
Institute. Welcome back to the show.<br>
<br>
Anders Carlson: Thank you, Dave.<br>
<br>
Miller: Can you remind us what the Oregon Glaciers Institute is?<br>
<br>
Carlson: Sure thing. It’s a small nonprofit formed in 2020,
volunteer citizen scientists looking at documenting the changes in
Oregon’s glaciers and the impacts they have on our environment and
ecosystems.<br>
<br>
Miller: My understanding is that you heard a promo for our
conversation that we were going to be having with Scott Beason,
and you said, “I have news to share with Oregon about Mount Hood.”
So, what are the surveys that you recently completed?<br>
<br>
Carlson: So, we finalized two surveys. One is just documenting how
many glaciers remain in the Oregon cascades. And then what the
recent one that I contacted you about was in 2003, a mountaineer
and emergency room doctor in the Portland area, Doctor Steve
Boyer, for posterity’s sake decided to go out and measure the
location of the termini of glaciers on Mount Hood, and also
photograph them. And he probably at least at one point held the
record for the number of summits on Mount Hood as well. And he
shared this information with us a few years ago. and we then
decided this summer to go out 20 years later and repeat his survey
to document how much these glaciers have changed in the last 20
years. So kind of a 20 years of the 21st century glacier change on
Mount Hood. And the last official published documentation of
glacier change on Hood was finalized in 2001 to 2004.<br>
<br>
Miller: So almost 20 years later, you did this again. So tell us
the bad news.<br>
<br>
Carlson: Oh, the bad news is that there’s been massive loss of ice
on Hood. At a bigger perspective, about in the last 120 years, 60%
of the major glaciers on Hood have lost 60% of their area. Now,
that’s over the last 120 years. 25% of that occurred in the last
20 years. And so, roughly, of the area lost in the last 120 years,
40% of that occurred in the last two decades. It’s been a rapid
increase in the rate of glacier loss in the first two decades of
this millennium. Just to put some numbers on it, up to the turn of
the millennium, glaciers on Hood were retreating at about 3.5% per
decade of the area loss. In the last 20 years, this has increased
by 3.6 times to 12.5% of the area loss per decade.<br>
<br>
Miller: What we’re talking about is just a worse version of the
exact same dynamics that we are hearing about on Mount Rainier,
which I guess makes sense given that we’re talking about a
significantly lower elevation mountain on Hood, and a little bit
further south, warmer in two different ways. How did you actually
carry out this survey? What were the physical challenges of doing
this?<br>
<br>
Carlson: Good question. When Steve did this back in 2003, he took
his time going around the mountain and just climbing up the
different drainages on various weekends in the late summer, early
fall. We don’t have that luxury anymore 20 years later. So we had
to go for it when you could have a window with no forest fire
smoke, which has greatly reduced the ability to conduct such
research in Oregon, because the best time we’ll get glaciers is
late summer, early fall. That’s also when our skies get choked
with smoke and you shouldn’t be outside.<br>
<br>
So we found a window to do it in. And then instead of just going
up the different drainages, going around a cone, we’ll
circumnavigate Hood above treeline. The intent was to walk every
ice margin around the mountain.<br>
<br>
And that was really difficult. For one, the glaciers are
retreating fast, and so there’s a lot of water there, and that has
made the ground unsure. Like Scott just mentioned, debris flows
are increasing. And then on top of that, the rock fall above the
glaciers is dramatically increased as well. You see it on the
glaciers themselves where they’re becoming debris armored and
covered with a rock fall. But it’s also coming after us. We had to
actually bail on one of our pathways because bowling ball sized
rocks are flying down randomly every five minutes onto Newton
Clark Glacier. And then we saw a giant landslide occur. We
videotaped it, and it is just right out of the glacier just
shooting down right where we wanted to go. So it has become very,
very dangerous to conduct this work in the late summers because of
the warming climate that’s removed the snow and ice protecting the
underlying rock from falling down.<br>
<br>
Miller: So, essentially for thousands of years, these huge rocks
have been kept in place by ice. Now the ice is melting and the
rocks are just falling down the mountain.<br>
<br>
Carlson: The mountains are literally falling apart with the loss
of snow and ice on them.<br>
<br>
Miller: What about Oregon’s other glaciers? I’m thinking in
particular about Central Oregon on Mount Jefferson or South Sister
or the other Sisters?<br>
<br>
Carlson: Good question. They are in worse shape than Mount Hood.
Mount Hood, just like you mentioned before, Hood being further
south and lower elevation than Rainier making it warmer, Hood is
also the most resilient mountain within the state of Oregon to
climate change because it’s the tallest and furthest north. As you
go south, the problems become worse. In Mount Jefferson this
summer, the glaciers outside of Whitewater Glacier had no snow on
them at the end of the summer. And so they’re in very bad shape,
they’re not getting any refurbishment of snow. They’re on a
starvation diet. When you go down to the Three Sisters region -
South Sister, Middle Sister, North Sister and Broken Top - they’ve
been in that kind of state for five to six years now at a bare
minimum. In short, it’s gotten too warm in that region to sustain
glaciers for a long period of time. They’re going to disappear in
that region in the current climate. It’s already too hot in Oregon
to have glaciers in the Three Sisters region.<br>
<br>
Miller: What does all this mean for people who love being on
mountains for skiing, for hiking, for whatever?<br>
<br>
Carlson: It’s a dramatic loss. It’s fundamentally changing the way
we view the mountains in Oregon. We have iconic snow covered peaks
that we see on the horizon and we go to and get reprieve in the
summers for going up and getting a ski. You can’t do that anymore.
And if you go later in the summer, you might get hit by a rock.
It’s shortening what was our year round ski season that we brag
about. Timberline doesn’t operate now throughout the whole year.
They do a good job of maintaining the Palmer Snowfield on Hood,
but they cease operations in August now versus letting people ski
into September and only stopping just to repair the list before
the winter comes.<br>
<br>
The streams will start running dry in the late summers, and it’ll
impact what Scott was saying there, the salmon, the trout. It’s
gonna make water wars increase because you’re gonna have hotter
streams with less water in them, and a conflict between
withdrawals for agriculture and ranching and drinking water versus
keeping the streams flowing and cold enough for salmon and trout
species to survive. So, it’s not good at all.<br>
<br>
Miller: What has this work been like for you emotionally? To take
part in these surveys that put numbers to what you can already see
with your naked eye?<br>
<br>
Carlson: In a way it’s cathartic because you could see it
happening. And when we started the Oregon Glaciers Institute, the
main reason was that nobody was paying attention to this in the
state of Oregon. We can now at least put numbers on it and make
people be aware of what’s happening. Basically, the climate’s
already too hot. And so we need to cool down from where we are if
we want to keep Oregon the way we’ve known and loved the place we
live in. So this is one of the best ways to document and make
people aware of how the climate is changing and will impact our
way of life in this state.<br>
<br>
Miller: Anders Carlson, thanks very much for your time. I
appreciate it.<br>
<br>
Carlson: Thank you.<br>
<br>
Miller: Anders Carlson is the president of the Oregon Glaciers
Institute.<br>
<br>
Contact “Think Out Loud®”<br>
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or
suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on
Facebook, send an email to <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:thinkoutloud@opb.org">thinkoutloud@opb.org</a>, or
you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in
phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.opb.org/article/2023/10/05/mount-rainiers-iconic-glaciers-are-disappearing/">https://www.opb.org/article/2023/10/05/mount-rainiers-iconic-glaciers-are-disappearing/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[ a bit of fear pandering, but interesting ]</i><br>
<b>A Dangerous 'Factor X' Could Be Lurking in Earth's Ice,
Scientist Warns</b><br>
ENVIRONMENT<br>
13 November 2023<br>
By MIKE MCRAE<br>
Earth's rapid defrosting is putting our ecosystems and our own
personal health at risk of a litany of threats, including a slew
of potential pathogens that may once have wreaked havoc among our
ancestors.<br>
As reported by Newsweek's Pandora Dewan, scientists are
increasingly concerned that viruses successfully reawakened after
tens of thousands of years preserved in permafrost could be a sign
of worse things to come.<br>
<br>
"There is a Factor X that we really don't know very much about,"
Umeå University infectious disease specialist Birgitta Evengård
told Dewan.<br>
<br>
As speculative as such future threats happen to be, what
researchers have uncovered in recent years warrants serious
consideration into improving surveillance and investigation of
potential spillover events in the Arctic<br>
Thanks to the very way infectious diseases work, most epidemics
are likely to come from a novel source, such as a population of
wild animals. Studies have shown outbreaks of zoonotic diseases
are on the increase, both in number and in diversity, with deaths
expected to continue to rise by an average of nearly 10 percent
each year.<br>
<br>
Statistics like these don't even take into account spikes caused
by catastrophic events like COVID-19, which are also expected to
occur with greater frequency as the climate shifts and humans
encroach on a greater diversity of animal habitats.<br>
<br>
While history can tell us a thing or two about diseases spilling
across from one host to another through space, the possibility of
a pathogen making a giant leap through time is new territory for
researchers.<br>
Yet there are solid reasons to suspect it's possible, and even
likely.<br>
<br>
In 2016, anthrax was reportedly responsible for the deaths of more
than 2,000 reindeer and a single person in the sparsely populated
Yamalo-Nenets district of northwest Siberia. The origin of this
particular outbreak is thought to be an infected animal carcass,
one that had been long frozen in the Siberian ice.<br>
<br>
The bacterium responsible for the disease, Bacillus anthracis, has
evolved a talent for hibernating in the form of a spore, with
another species in the same genus being revived in the laboratory
following tens of millions of years of preservation inside a bee
trapped in amber.<br>
<br>
Viruses can have a similar knack for sleeping away the centuries.
Just last year, researchers reported on the revival of a 50,000
year old amoeba virus found in frozen sediment 16 meters (52
meters) below a Russian lake.<br>
<br>
What these laboratory studies have to say about the chances of
real-world viral infections is hard to say. While viruses require
the right 'machinery' to latch onto host cells and replicate
inside, there's no clear rule about the evolutionary relationship
between two potential hosts, making it hard to predict just how
susceptible we might be to a pathogen based on what they infected
in the past.<br>
On the other hand, the rate and intensity of contact with a virus
might make all the difference in whether it eventually evolved a
means of infecting a new host. Dump enough microbes into a shared
ecosystem over a short time frame, there's a chance at least one
might find a new host to infect.<br>
<br>
Researchers from the University of Ottawa used DNA and RNA
sequencing to build a picture of the kinds of viruses found in the
soil and water of Lake Hazen, the largest freshwater lake in the
High Arctic. Their study, published in 2022, suggests the frozen
north could become "fertile ground for emerging pandemics" as ice
continues to melt.<br>
<br>
Measuring the overlap between the family trees of the viruses and
potential hosts, their investigation showed the chances of a
spillover of trapped viruses into a known susceptible host
population rises as the rate of glacial melt increases.<br>
<br>
While a return of smallpox, the next coronavirus, or some
completely novel kind of virus known only to our distant ancestors
are all terrifying possibilities, the chances a pathogen might
emerge that influences critical parts of a food web can't be
dismissed either; either as an agent of infection or as a source
of carbon itself.<br>
Knowing what we do, there are almost certainly unknown factors
contained in long-frozen ice that could take us by surprise.<br>
<br>
Evengård's message to Dewan is one that bears repeating. "There is
a lot we don't know, and what very few people have looked into is
the permafrost."<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.sciencealert.com/a-dangerous-factor-x-could-be-lurking-in-earths-ice-scientist-warns">https://www.sciencealert.com/a-dangerous-factor-x-could-be-lurking-in-earths-ice-scientist-warns</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ DW Documentary on Doomers ]</i><br>
<b>Are climate doomers right?</b><br>
DW Planet A<br>
May 26, 2023 #Doomer #planeta #Climatepsychology<br>
A growing number of people believe that humanity is doomed because
of climate change, while some are even full-blown preparing for a
world post-collapse. Like Ben Green, who calls himself a “happy
doomer”. Join me as I visit the old army barracks he calls home, to
figure out if he’s right to be preparing for such an eventuality. <br>
- -<br>
Author: Aditi Rajagopal ...<br>
<br>
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't
need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift
towards an eco-friendly world — and challenges our ideas about what
dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small:
What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday
we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.<br>
#planeta #Doomer #Climatepsychology <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB6smZzFgVY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB6smZzFgVY</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
</font><font face="Calibri"> <i>[The news archive - political
persuasion and misinformation pandering ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <font size="+2"><i><b>November 19, 1992</b></i></font>
</font><br>
October 19, 1992: In the third presidential debate, President George
H. W. Bush accuses Democratic challenger Bill Clinton and his
running mate, Senator Al Gore, of pandering to "the spotted owl
crowd or the extremes in the environmental movement" by supporting
an increase in fuel efficiency standards. Clinton defends the idea
of raising fuel efficiency standards; in addition, he states, "We
also ought to convert more vehicles to compressed natural gas.
That's another way to improve the environment." <br>
(26:30-29:00)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCGtHqIwKek">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCGtHqIwKek</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><br>
=== Other climate news sources
===========================================<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b>*Inside Climate News</b><br>
Newsletters<br>
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every
day or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s
top headlines deliver the full story, for free.<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/">https://insideclimatenews.org/</a><br>
--------------------------------------- <br>
*<b>Climate Nexus</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*">https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*</a>
<br>
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News
summarizes the most important climate and energy news of the
day, delivering an unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant
reporting. It also provides original reporting and commentary on
climate denial and pro-polluter activity that would otherwise
remain largely unexposed. 5 weekday <br>
================================= <br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>Carbon Brief Daily </b><span
class="moz-txt-star"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a></span><b
class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> <br>
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon
Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to
thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest
of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change
and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in
the peer-reviewed journals. <br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief">https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief</a>
<br>
================================== <br>
*T<b>he Daily Climate </b>Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*">https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*</a>
<br>
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate
impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days.
Better than coffee. <br>
Other newsletters at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a>
<br>
<br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri">
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/</a><br>
<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 -- and carries no
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender. This is a personal 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">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. </font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font>
</body>
</html>