<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>April 5</b></i></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>, 2024</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font><br>
<i>[ every year, a prediction ]</i><br>
<b>Forecasters predict an extremely active 2024 Atlantic hurricane
season</b><br>
Colorado State University’s hurricane forecasting team is calling
for a near-record active season with 23 named storms, 11 hurricanes,
and five major hurricanes.<br>
by JEFF MASTERS<br>
APRIL 4, 2024<br>
An extremely active Atlantic hurricane season is likely in 2024, the
Colorado State University (CSU) hurricane forecasting team says in
its latest seasonal forecast, issued April 4. Led by Dr. Phil
Klotzbach, with co-authors Dr. Michael Bell, Alexander DesRosiers,
and Levi Silvers, the CSU team is calling for 23 named storms, 11
hurricanes, five major hurricanes, and an Accumulated Cyclone Energy
(ACE) of 210 (171% of average). In comparison, the long-term
averages for the period 1991-2020 were 14.4 named storms, 7.2
hurricanes, 3.2 major hurricanes, and an ACE of 123.<br>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/04/forecasters-predict-an-extremely-active-2024-atlantic-hurricane-season/">https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/04/forecasters-predict-an-extremely-active-2024-atlantic-hurricane-season/</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ realclimate.org is the most scientifically trusted site on the
Internet ]</i><br>
<b>Much ado about acceleration</b><br>
4 APR 2024 <br>
BY GAVIN <br>
There has been a lot of commentary about perceived disagreements
among climate scientists about whether climate change is, or will
soon, accelerate. As with most punditry, there is less here than it
might seem.<br>
<br>
Last year, Jim Hansen and colleagues published a long paper that
included a figure suggesting that they expected that global
temperature trends from 2011 to increase above the recent linear
trends...<br>
- -<br>
In my recent Nature commentary, I pointed out the difficulties
explaining quantitatively why 2023 was so warm. Without further
clarity on that, deciding whether we have yet seen an acceleration
or not is a bit ambiguous.<br>
Another view of the future is given by the results of climate
models. We’ve discussed some of the issues with the latest CMIP6
round of simulations many times in recent years, nonetheless, by
screening the model ensemble based on the likely range of climate
sensitivity, we can create projections that align closely with
assessed projections from the last IPCC report. These projections
are the basis of our updated comparisons of CMIP6 models to
observations, and specifically this graph:<br>
It is worth remembering what the CMIP6 projections are based on.
These simulations used historical GHG concentrations and aerosol
emissions to 2014, and a mid-range scenario (SSP2-4.5) thereafter,
which has continued increases of CO2 and CH4 as well as forecast
decreases in aerosol emissions. The screening uses the likely range
of 1.8 to 2.2ºC of transient climate response, roughly equivalent to
to a screening uses equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.5 to 4ºC
for a doubling of CO2 (Hausfather et al, 2022).<br>
<br>
The question naturally arises as to who is correct, Hansen et al or
the models?<br>
<br>
We can assess this by extending our graph to 2050, and plotting
Hansen et al’s projected range on top:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.realclimate.org/images/cmip6_plus_hansen-2048x1315.jpg">https://www.realclimate.org/images/cmip6_plus_hansen-2048x1315.jpg</a><br>
Remarkably, the Hansen et al projections are basically
indistinguishable from what the mean of the TCR-screened CMIP6
models are projecting. Or, to put it another way, everybody is (or
should be) expecting an acceleration of climate warming (in the
absence of dramatic cuts in GHG emissions) (CarbonBrief has a
similar analysis), even if we might differ on whether it is yet
detectable.<br>
<br>
Update (4/4): I was prodded to provide a histogram focused on the
trends in the ensembles. Happy to oblige (note that this is only one
run per model):<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/">https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
<i>[ fundamental civility: clean up your mess. Especially
leaking methane ]</i><br>
<b>In Colorado - Oil Oligarchs Offload Orphan Wells on Taxpayers</b><br>
greenmanbucket<br>
Apr 4, 2024<br>
Lawsuit filed against lawless oil scammers who leave behind toxic
junk and unplugged wells.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQ9bbdUzm4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQ9bbdUzm4</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://youtu.be/0gQ9bbdUzm4?si=f6EDdTZ1cOQnb2Fx">https://youtu.be/0gQ9bbdUzm4?si=f6EDdTZ1cOQnb2Fx</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ How is this wise for investors? ]</i><br>
<b>The Fed Blocks Stricter Global ESG Rules for Banks</b><br>
By Tsvetana Paraskova - writer for Oilprice.com <br>
Apr 03, 2024<br>
The US Federal Reserve has blocked an attempt led by the European
Central Bank (ECB) to make climate risks a pillar of global rules
for banks and require them to report their strategies on meeting
climate commitments, sources with knowledge of the matter have told
Bloomberg.<br>
<br>
Some members of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS),
which includes central banks and bank supervisors from around the
world, have been pushing for making climate risks and ESG
commitments the center of new rules for banks everywhere in the
world.<br>
Members of the Fed, however, have expressed in closed-door meetings
concerns about such rules because they believe the committee might
be overreaching with this particular supervision, according to some
of Bloomberg’s sources. The Fed officials also feel they have a
narrow mandate in this area to regulate climate risk disclosures
from the Wall Street banks, the sources added.<br>
<br>
Although the Basel Committee cannot enforce its banking system
standards on jurisdictions, it could set a global baseline, from
which the single countries develop their own rules and procedures. <br>
<br>
The Fed’s resistance to the Europe-led climate risk disclosures
highlights the rift between the two sides of the Atlantic in the ESG
push, with Europe committed to implementing tougher rules.<br>
<br>
European banks should integrate environmental, social, and
governance risks in their regular risk management framework, the
European Banking Authority (EBA) said in January in draft guidelines
on the management of ESG risks.<br>
<p> The European authority published a consultation paper on its
draft proposals for banks as it launched a public consultation
that will run until April 18, 2024. </p>
According to the EBA, climate change, environmental degradation,
social issues, and other ESG factors pose “considerable challenges
for the economy that impact the financial sector.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/The-Fed-Blocks-Stricter-Global-ESG-Rules-for-Banks.html">https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/The-Fed-Blocks-Stricter-Global-ESG-Rules-for-Banks.html</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Revered Harvard scholar - video interview 39 mins - best
summary ]</i><br>
<b>Climate is a Justice Issue | Naomi Oreskes</b><br>
Planet: Critical<br>
Jan 17, 2024<br>
Neoliberalism is the disease which keeps on killing.<br>
<br>
But did you know the neoliberal economic gospel we live under today
is a deliberate misinterpretation of the original theory? <br>
<br>
In her new book, The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to
Loathe Government and Love the Free Market, historian of science
Naomi Oreskes shows how a group of American plutocrats distorted the
the conservative teachings of Friedrich van Hayek’s theory of
neoliberalism in order to plunder the world’s resource, unleash the
markets, and undermine federal power. <br>
<br>
She joins me today to give a incisive and brutal summary of why our
world is in crisis, detailing the criminal avarice of these
plutocrats; how institutions, lobbyists and corporations continue to
undermine democracy; and why a renewable world threatens the powers
that be. This phenomenal explanation shows why the climate crisis is
not a scientific problem, but a political, economic and social
issue, with Naomi revealing tactics civilians used throughout
history against the destructive elite.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZk4Xjn6tEY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZk4Xjn6tEY</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ so says the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ]</i><br>
<b>World set to quadruple oil and gas production by 2030, led by new
US projects</b><br>
By Oliver Milman | April 4, 2024The world’s fossil-fuel producers
are on track to nearly quadruple the amount of extracted oil and gas
from newly approved projects by the end of this decade, with the US
leading the way in a surge of activity that threatens to blow apart
agreed climate goals, a new report has found.
<p> There can be no new oil and gas infrastructure if the planet is
to avoid careering past 1.5C (2.7F) of global heating, above
pre-industrial times, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has
previously stated. Breaching this warming threshold, agreed to by
governments in the Paris climate agreement, will see ever
worsening effects such as heatwaves, floods, drought and more,
scientists have warned.</p>
But since the IEA’s declaration in 2021, countries and major fossil
fuel companies have forged ahead with a glut of new oil and gas
activity. At least 20bn barrels of oil equivalent of new oil and gas
has been discovered for future drilling since this point, according
to the new report by Global Energy Monitor, a San Francisco-based
NGO.<br>
<br>
Last year, at least 20 oil and gas fields were readied and approved
for extraction following discovery, sanctioning the removal of 8bn
barrels of oil equivalent. By the end of this decade, the report
found, the fossil-fuel industry aims to sanction nearly four times
this amount – 31bn barrels of oil equivalent – across 64 additional
new oil and gas fields.<br>
<br>
The US, which has produced more crude oil than any country has ever
done in history for the past six years in a row, led the way in new
oil and gas projects in 2022 and 2023, the report found. Guyana was
second, with countries in the Americas accounting for 40% of all new
oil sanctioned in the past two years.<br>
<p>The failure to even slightly slow down the hunt for new oil and
gas risks a fatal blow to already slender hopes of the world
remaining below 1.5C, a limit that scientists expect will be
surpassed within a decade.<br>
<br>
It comes as major oil and gas companies miss or water down their
own targets to cut planet-heating emissions. At a recent industry
conference in Texas, the boss of Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest
oil company, said people “should abandon the fantasy” of phasing
out oil and gas.<br>
<br>
“Despite the constant and clear warnings that no new oil and gas
fields are compatible with 1.5C, the industry continues to
discover and sanction new projects,” said Scott Zimmerman, project
manager of the global oil and gas extraction tracker at Global
Energy Monitor. “It’s disappointing. It shows a lack of
supply-side commitment to climate goals.”<br>
<br>
Already operating oil and gas infrastructure will be enough to
push the world beyond 1.5C and the extra activity planned will
only further raise the global temperature. A total of 45 projects
have been fully sanctioned, with 16 billion barrels of oil
equivalent, since the 2021 IEA report, according to the new
report, which is almost certainly an undercount of coming
emissions as it doesn’t include “unconventional” extraction, such
as fracking.<br>
<br>
While the US has maintained its heavyweight status in oil and gas
with the new discoveries, fresh areas of the globe are now being
focused on by fossil fuel producers for new production, with South
America and Africa becoming hotspots for upcoming projects.<br>
</p>
<p>Of the 22 countries with significant oil and gas discoveries in
the past two years, four – Cyprus, Guyana, Namibia and Zimbabwe –
accounted for more than a third of discoveries, despite having
produced little or no oil and gas until recently.<br>
<br>
The Shahini gas field in Iran – reportedly containing 623bn cubic
meters of gas – is the largest single discovery of the past two
years, followed by TotalEnergies’ Venus project in Namibia. The
Kodiak project in Alaska, overseen by Pantheon Resources, is the
third largest new potential oil and gas field.<br>
<br>
“Oil and gas producers have given all kinds of reasons for
continuing to discover and develop new fields, but none of these
hold water,” said Zimmerman. “The science is clear: no new oil and
gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle.”<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/world-set-to-quadruple-oil-and-gas-production-by-2030-led-by-new-us-projects/">https://thebulletin.org/2024/04/world-set-to-quadruple-oil-and-gas-production-by-2030-led-by-new-us-projects/</a><br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.climatedesk.org/">https://www.climatedesk.org/</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"> </font><font face="Calibri"> <i>[The news
archive - ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <font size="+2"><i><b>April 5, 2002 </b></i></font>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> April 5, 2002: New York Times
columnist Paul Krugman denounces White House press secretary Ari
Fleischer's "...use of a press conference on the crisis in the
Middle East to shill, once again, for the Bush energy plan,"
observing:<br>
<blockquote>"Even if the United States weren't dependent on imported
oil, the Middle East would still be a strategically crucial
region, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would still be a
world nightmare.<br>
<br>
"But to the extent that oil independence would help -- and it
would, a bit, by reducing the leverage of Persian Gulf producers
-- the Bush administration has long since forfeited the moral high
ground. It has done so by vigorously opposing any serious efforts
at conservation, which would have to be the centerpiece of any
real plan to reduce oil imports.<br>
<br>
"There are many ways to make this case; here are two more. Even at
its peak, a decade or so after drilling began, oil production from
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would reduce imports by no
more than would a 3-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel efficiency --
something easily achievable, were it not for opposition from
special interest groups. Indeed, the Kerry-McCain fuel efficiency
standards, which the administration opposed, would have saved
three times as much oil as ANWR might produce. Or put it this way:
Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels per day, of
which the United States consumes almost 20; ANWR would produce, at
maximum, a bit more than 1 million.<br>
<br>
"Yet a few months ago, Republican activists ran ads with
side-by-side photos of Tom Daschle and Saddam Hussein, declaring
that both men oppose drilling in ANWR -- and Dick Cheney, when
asked, stood behind those ads. Administration critics could, with
rather more justification, run ads with side-by-side photos of
George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein, declaring that both men oppose
increased fuel efficiency standards. (Actually, I'm not aware that
Iraq's ruler has expressed an opinion on either issue.) Of course,
if such ads did run, there would be enormous outrage. After all,
turnabout wouldn't be fair play because, well, just because."</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/opinion/at-long-last.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/opinion/at-long-last.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<p><font face="Calibri"> <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Calibri">/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></font></p>
/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>
<p>/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>
</p>
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>
<p> 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. </p>
<font face="monospace">
=== </font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font>
</body>
</html>