Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Global warming is real and human-caused. It is leading to large-scale climate change. Under the guise of climate "skepticism", the public is bombarded with misinformation that casts doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming "skepticism".
Our mission is simple: debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial, discourses of climate delay, and climate solutions denial.
Posted on 2 July 2024 by John Mason, BaerbelW, Ken Rice
Regular readers might be surprised to not see another "At a glance" highlight for an updated rebuttal given that it's Tuesday when this blog post gets published and that we've done just that "regularly as clockwork" since February 2023. Please read on to find out why we are going on a little summer break now and how we plan to switch to a more relaxed publication routine for updated rebuttals following that.
November 2022 saw us set off on a bit of a journey. It wasn't just that there was a mountain of rebuttals debunking well-known denier talking-points, waiting to be updated. More ambitiously, we had also decided after some debate to restructure them, for the purpose of improved public accessibility. You will therefore immediately know that you landed upon an updated rebuttal if it begins with "At a glance".
Since late 2022 it's been pretty much flat out, with John Mason drafting one or two updated rebuttals a week and Bärbel Winkler, Ken Rice and others reviewing their content. We started our weekly highlighting of updated rebuttals on February 14th 2023 and up until now have continued that procedure without fail, passing 50 updated rebuttals at the end of January 2024. All told, almost 100 updated rebuttals have been drafted with 71 published and highlighted as of this post. It's been a lot of hard work, in other words. But it's the summer holidays soon and we think we deserve a break!
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 1 July 2024 by Guest Author
This video includes conclusions of the creator climate scientist Dr. Adam Levy. It is presented to our readers as an informed perspective. Please see video description for references (if any).
Across the world people are sweltering under the extreme heat of heat waves - whether under the heat dome in North America or the deadly heat that threatened Hajj pilgrims in Mecca. These weather disasters may not look as scary as devastating floods, wildfires and droughts, but they are silent killers - threatening the most vulnerable in our societies. And now research is shedding light on just how deadly heat waves can be, and how climate change is pouring fuel on the fire. So how does global warming have such a huge effect on heatwaves, and what climate action can we take to protect ourselves - now and in the future?
Thanks to scientist Dr Fredi Otto for her input on the script. Follow here here: X /frediotto
Support ClimateAdam on patreon: https://patreon.com/climateadam
Read more...
1 comments
Posted on 30 June 2024 by BaerbelW, Doug Bostrom, John Hartz
A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, June 23, 2024 thru Sat, June 29, 2024.
Story of the week
Our Story of the Week is extreme weather juiced by our climate fumble creating an extreme start to summer across the Northern Hemisphere:
As University of Massachusetts professors Mathew Barlow and and Jeffrey Basara explain in another article in this week's listing, we know this isn't normal summer weather. This won't come as a shock to most of us. "Plain as the nose on your face" is hard to avoid— or deny. Perhaps this is why we're seeing our own explainer against "it's not happening" fading into its sunset years (if our access statistics are any guide).
Now that we're properly roasting, are we done with denial of human-caused climate change? Not exactly, because of some basic facts:
- The fundamental fix for our climate mess is energy modernization, shrugging off our old habit of burning hydrocarbons.
- The faster we step into this future, the less that outmoded energy firms reliant on fossil fuels will be able to monetize the resources they control.
Hence it doesn't need a rocket scientist to see an obvious way for any energy firm stuck in the past to optimize its stale resources: delay energy progress by all means possible. If all once has to sell is inconvenient and awkward melting ice, modern refrigeration is very bad news and must be discouraged at all costs. It's no different with fossil fuels.
Previously (and still to some extent) encouragement to procrastinate was accomplished by fairly crude denial of fairly basic physics we've had in our grasp for a span including three centuries. Now— with the evidence of our changing of our climate being increasingly plain to see— we're seeing a novel and malign form of "energy transition" wherein the focus of effort by the fossil fuel industry on delaying the invitable march of technological progress shifts. No longer are we not changing the planet but rather the wretched mess we're making with our energy anachronism is a necessary and even hopeful feature of human progress, as detailed in yet another article from this week's collection. The gist of "innovation" by parties interested in freezing our energy clock is nicely covered in The New Climate Denial Is Based on These Six Terms, via Genevieve Guenther writing for The New Republic.
Stories we promoted this week, by publication date:
Before June 23
- Billions of people just felt the deadly intensity of climate-fueled heat waves, Ciimate, Washington Post, Sarah Kaplan & Scott Dance. "Scorching heat across five continents set 1,400 records this week and showed how human-caused global warming has made catastrophic temperatures commonplace."
- "The Day After Tomorrow" is one of the only true climate change films. Why do scientists hate it?, Salon, Matthew Rosza. "Salon spoke with the director and co-writer of the 2004 sci-fi blockbuster about scientific accuracy in Hollywood"
- Analysis: Wind and solar added more to global energy than any other source in 2023, Renewables, Carbon Brief, Simon Evans & Verner Viisainen.
- The U.S. is finally making serious efforts to adapt to climate change, Eye on the Storm, Yale Climate Connections, Jeff Masters. "A major bill before Congress could help the country prepare for the coming climate storm."
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 29 June 2024 by John Mason
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by John Mason in collaboration with members from the Gigafact team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.
Does temperature have to rise before CO2 does?
While historically Earth's temperatures have risen or fallen after its position in space slowly changed, the dominant cause of today's rapid warming is carbon dioxide emissions from human activities.
Cyclical variations in Earth’s orbit along with its axial tilt and orientation gradually affect the amount of solar energy that reaches Earth. These “Milankovitch Cycles” occur over tens of thousands of years. During a warming phase, they trigger feedback mechanisms that add additional warming.
One example is raising the temperature of the oceans, which releases carbon dioxide from the water. Thus, while CO2 increased in response to an initial warming, it also caused additional warming.
Today’s global warming is not due to Milankovitch Cycles, which are in their slow cooling phase. This time, it’s us. When we burn fossil fuels, we emit CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which make it more difficult for heat to escape the atmosphere.
Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Sources
Science Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming
American Institute of Physics The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
NASA Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth’s Climate
NASA Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming
NASA Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 28 June 2024 by BaerbelW
Conspiracy theories attempt to explain events as the secretive plots of powerful people. While conspiracy theories are not typically supported by evidence, this doesn’t stop them from blossoming. Conspiracy theories damage society in a number of ways. To help minimise these harmful effects, The Conspiracy Theory Handbook, by Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook, explains why conspiracy theories are so popular, how to identify the traits of conspiratorial thinking, and what are effective response strategies.
After its initial publication in March 2020, it didn't take long for the first translation - German - to make an appearance, followed in fairly short order by Spanish and Portuguese. Since then, several translations have been added each year and this year we already published two more: Dutch as #19 in May and Bulgarian at the end of June, getting us up to 20 translations!
With 20 translations, The Conspiracy Theory Handbook is now our handbook with the most translations, followed close on its heels by The Debunking Handbook 2020 with 19 translations thus far.
The Conspiracy Theaory Handbook distills the most important research findings and expert advice on dealing with conspiracy theories. It also introduces the abbreviation CONSPIR which serves as a mnemonic to more easily remember these seven traits of conspiratorial thinking:
Read more...
3 comments
Posted on 27 June 2024 by Doug Bostrom, Marc Kodack
Open access notables
Tipping point in ice-sheet grounding-zone melting due to ocean water intrusion, Bradley & Hewitt, Nature Geoscience:
Here we develop a model to capture the feedback between intruded ocean water, the melting it induces and the resulting changes in ice geometry. We reveal a sensitive dependence of the grounding-zone dynamics on this feedback: as the grounding zone widens in response to melting, both temperature and flow velocity in the region increase, further enhancing melting. We find that increases in ocean temperature can lead to a tipping point being passed, beyond which ocean water intrudes in an unbounded manner beneath the ice sheet, via a process of runaway melting. Additionally, this tipping point may not be easily detected with early warning indicators. Although completely unbounded intrusions are not expected in practice, this suggests a mechanism for dramatic changes in grounding-zone behaviour, which are not currently included in ice-sheet models. We consider the susceptibility of present-day Antarctic grounding zones to this process, finding that both warm and cold water cavity ice shelves may be vulnerable. Our results point towards a stronger sensitivity of ice-sheet melting, and thus higher sea-level-rise contribution in a warming climate, than has been previously understood.
Diminished efficacy of regional marine cloud brightening in a warmer world, Wan et al., Nature Climate Change:
Marine cloud brightening (MCB) is a geoengineering proposal to cool atmospheric temperatures and reduce climate change impacts. As large-scale approaches to stabilize global mean temperatures pose governance challenges, regional interventions may be more attractive near term. Here we investigate the efficacy of regional MCB in the North Pacific to mitigate extreme heat in the Western United States. Under present-day conditions, we find MCB in the remote mid-latitudes or proximate subtropics reduces the relative risk of dangerous summer heat exposure by 55% and 16%, respectively. However, the same interventions under mid-century warming minimally reduce or even increase heat stress in the Western United States and across the world. This loss of efficacy may arise from a state-dependent response of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation to both anthropogenic warming and regional MCB. Our result demonstrates a risk in assuming that interventions effective under certain conditions will remain effective as the climate continues to change.
Millions of climate refugees are coming!’ A critical media discourse analysis on climate change-induced migrants in Flemish press, Bonneux & Van Praag, Environmental Sociology:
The rise in research, policy and news on climate change-induced migration has grown exponentially over the last two decades. Migration related to global warming is increasingly portrayed as inevitable and used to mobilise people to act immediately against climate change. By analysing the discourse of two Flemish news media journals (De Standaard and Het Laatste Nieuws) and the Belgian national news agency (Belga), indexed by the GoPress database (1985–2022), this paper aims to present how migration and climate change are linked to each other in the media, how this differs across media outlets, and reflects on potential outcomes of this framing. Results indicate that climate-induced migration is often portrayed in an apocalyptic way and seen as an inevitable threat that needs to be avoided. The used terminology and the portrayals of climate change-induced migration are not in line with the scientific evidence on this topic.
Climate change to exacerbate the burden of water collection on women’s welfare globally, Carr et al., Nature Climate Change:
In rural households lacking access to running water, women often bear the responsibility for its collection, with adverse effects on their well being through long daily time commitments, physical strain and mental distress. Here we show that rising temperatures will exacerbate this water collection burden globally. Using fixed-effects regression, we analyse the effect of climate conditions on self-reported water collection times for 347 subnational regions across four continents from 1990 to 2019. Historically, a 1 °C temperature rise increased daily water collection times by 4 minutes. Reduced precipitation historically increased water collection time, most strongly where precipitation levels were low or fewer women employed. Accordingly, due to warming by 2050, daily water collection times for women without household access could increase by 30% globally and up to 100% regionally, under a high-emissions scenario.
Managing values in climate science, Roussos, PLOS Climate
Climate science has been deeply affected by social and political values in the last fifty years [1]. If we focus on climate denial and obfuscation, we might see the influence of values as wholly negative and aim instead for objective, value-free climate science. But, perhaps surprisingly, this is at odds with the view of many philosophers who study the influence of values on science. Science cannot and should not be free from values, they argue. Rather, we should be transparent about our values, study their influence, and ensure that the right values play the right roles. But philosophers alone cannot determine what the right values are or what their appropriate use is. Close collaboration between climate scientists and philosophers is required for values in climate science to be accurately studied and appropriately managed.
From this week's government and NGO section:
People's Climate Vote 2024, United Nations Development Programme:
80 percent – or four out of five - people globally want their governments to take stronger action to tackle the climate crisis. Even more - 86 percent - want to see their countries set aside geopolitical differences and work together on climate change. The scale of consensus is especially striking in the current global context of increased conflict and the rise of nationalism. Over 73,000 people speaking 87 different languages across 77 countries were asked 15 questions on climate change for the survey. The questions were designed to help understand how people are experiencing the impacts of climate change and how they want world leaders to respond. The 77 countries polled represent 87 percent of the global population.
Looming Deadlines for Coastal Resilience, Dahl et al., Union of Concerned Scientists:
The nearly 90 million people living in U.S. coastal communities depend on an array of critical infrastructure—from the schools that students attend to the power and wastewater treatment plants that provide electricity and clean water. However, research by the authors shows that between now and 2050, climate change–driven sea level rise will expose more than 1,600 critical infrastructure assets coastwide to disruptive flooding at least twice per year. Future flooding particularly threatens public and affordable housing. This burden is borne inequitably: more than half the infrastructure at risk by 2050 is in communities at a disadvantage based on historical and ongoing racism, discrimination, and pollution. The amount of infrastructure in jeopardy late this century will depend heavily on countries’ choices about global heat-trapping emissions. Policymakers and public and private decision-makers must take immediate, science-based steps to safeguard critical infrastructure and achieve true, long-term coastal resilience.
146 articles in 65 journals by 860 contributing authors
Physical science of climate change, effects
Aitken Mode Aerosols Buffer Decoupled Mid-Latitude Boundary Layer Clouds Against Precipitation Depletion, McCoy et al., Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres Open Access pdf 10.1029/2023jd039572
Depth-dependent warming of the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba), Sengupta et al., Climatic Change Open Access pdf 10.1007/s10584-024-03765-8
Radiative Heating of High-Level Clouds and Its Impacts on Climate, Haslehner et al., Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres Open Access pdf 10.1029/2024jd040850
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 26 June 2024 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Karin Kirk
Astrong majority of registered voters support certain policies aimed at tackling climate change, according to recent research by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (the publisher of this site) and the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.
Here’s a summary of these results.
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 25 June 2024 by John Mason, BaerbelW, Ken Rice
On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a "bump" for our ask. This week features "What caused early 20th Century warming?". More will follow in the upcoming weeks. Please follow the Further Reading link at the bottom to read the full rebuttal and to join the discussion in the comment thread there.
At a glance
The Twentieth Century climate was a veritable Smorgasbord of natural and manmade factors. They vied with or against one another, driving temperatures in various directions at different times. Conditions were on the cool side up until the 1920s. That was followed by a sustained warming through to the late 1940s. From then until the late 1970s, periods of warmer and cooler conditions alternated. Thereafter, we saw the erratic but one-way climb of temperatures that has persisted through to the present day.
This was also the period during which CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels really took off, from 1.5 billion tonnes a year in 1900, through 6 billion tonnes in 1950, 25 billion by 2000 and 44 billion now. How well do those figures correlate with what was going on in Earth's climate system at the time?
Planetary climate is affected by a number of factors. Examples include solar variability, the amount of volcanic activity, fluctuating ocean currents, cyclic variations in Earth's orbit, the strength of the Greenhouse Effect and the amount of sunlight reflected by Earth's surface. Some are forcings - factors that dictate and change the total energy within the climate system. Others are feedbacks - they respond in various ways to those changes.
Both forcings and feedbacks operate on a variable timescales - from years to millennia. That variability means they may sometimes reinforce one another and at other times cancel each other out. To assess why the climate behaved in a certain way at a certain time, all must be examined.
In the case of the 1920-1940 period, the increase in global temperature is thought to have been largely caused by three of the above factors. The amount of solar energy reaching the top of Earth's atmosphere rose steadily from 1920-1940. Although the amount of change was small, it was certainly not negligible. Volcanic activity produces atmospheric aerosols that can have a cooling effect by partly blocking out the sun. Lower than normal volcanic activity, as was the case in the 1920-1940 period, would result in less of those airborne coolants. Our early, albeit relatively low greenhouse gas emissions also contributed to the warming. Regional factors played a role in increasing temperatures in some parts of the world, too. Most notably, changes in ocean currents led to warmer-than-normal sea temperatures in the North Atlantic.
Anyone who has been around for long enough to recall the chemical smogs of the 1950s and early 1960s will know that pollution can be deadly. In one smog, in London in December 1952, between 4,000 and 12,000 people died, victims of severe respiratory disease. Governments responded. Over the next two decades numerous Clean Air Acts were passed. Pollution levels fell accordingly. But such pollutants, just like volcanic gases, are aerosols that have that same cooling effect. Clearing them away removed that effect and tore off the mask behind which CO2 emissions had been hiding - and off we went on our warming journey.
Please use this form to provide feedback about this new "At a glance" section. Read a more technical version below or dig deeper via the tabs above!
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 24 June 2024 by Zeke Hausfather
This is a re-post from Carbon Brief
Global temperatures in 2023 blew past expectations to set the warmest year on record, even topping 1.5C in one of the main datasets.
This warmth has continued into 2024, meaning that this year is also on track to potentially pass 1.5C in one or more datasets.
Crossing 1.5C in one or even two years is not the same as exceeding the 1.5C limit under the Paris Agreement. The goal is generally considered to refer to long-term warming, rather than annual temperatures that include the short-term influence of natural fluctuations in the climate, such as El Niño.
Nonetheless, recent warming has led to renewed debate around whether the world might imminently pass the 1.5C Paris Agreement limit – sooner than climate scientists and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have previously estimated.
Here, Carbon Brief provides an updated analysis of when the world will likely exceed the Paris 1.5C limit (in a scenario where emissions are not rapidly cut), using both the latest global surface temperature data and climate model simulations.
The findings show that, while the best estimate for crossing 1.5C has moved up by approximately two years compared to Carbon Brief’s earlier 2020 analysis, it remains most likely to happen in the late 2020s or early 2030s – rather than in the next few years.
Understanding global temperature targets
Human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have substantially warmed the planet over the past 150 years. On top of this human-driven warming, there is year-to-year natural variability largely associated with El Niño and La Niña events.
A big El Niño or La Niña event can result in global temperatures up to 0.2C warmer or cooler, respectively, than they would otherwise be.
As the world has been warming by around 0.2C per decade, a large El Niño event can represent an early look at what typical global temperatures will be a decade in the future. Or, to put it another way, human emissions are adding a permanent super-El Niño’s worth of heat to the climate system each decade.
In the 2015 Paris Agreement, the international community agreed to limit warming to well-below 2C above pre-industrial levels and “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C”. While there is no set definition for the time period against which the goal is measured, it is generally interpreted to refer to long-term, human-driven warming.
For example, the IPCC’s recently completed sixth assessment report (AR6) uses the midpoint of a 20-year period as a way to avoid overinterpreting short-term natural variability.
While a useful approach, this definition has the unfortunate side-effect that scientists will not know for sure that the world passed 1.5C until 10 years after it has happened.
This has led the community to propose a number of alternative approaches, such as Carbon Brief’s 2020 analysis and a 2023 Nature commentary by Prof Richard Betts and colleagues at the UK Met Office.
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 23 June 2024 by BaerbelW, Doug Bostrom, John Hartz
A listing of 32 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, June 16, 2024 thru Sat, June 22, 2024.
Stories we promoted this week, by publication date:
Before June 16
- ‘Unprecedented mass coral bleaching’ expected in 2024, says expert, Environment, The Guardian, Karen McVeigh.
- Thinking a greener future is costly? The fingerprints of climate change are already all over this budget, ABC News, Jess Davis and Tim Leslie. If budgets are the government's attempt to chart the course for the next few years, what can this one teach us about how climate change is leaving its mark, and how the government is looking to tackle it?
- Major shift in global climate patterns is unfolding now, federal forecasters say, Weather, USA TODAY, Doyle Rice. "El Nin?o is officially over, federal forecasters announced Thursday, but we're not quite in a La Nin?a yet. We're in the middling 'ENSO-neutral' phase."
- Why we're still losing the fight against Methane, ClimateAdam on Youtube, Adam Levy.
- Madrid, Frankfurt, Vienna: How are European cities adapting to heatwaves?, EuroNews, Lottie Limb. As parts of Greece, Cyprus and Türkiye face searing heatwaves, here's how trees, water and green buildings can help.
- Swiss lawmakers reject climate ruling in favour of female climate elders, Weather, The Guardian, Ajit Niranjan. "Co-president of the KlimaSeniorinnen ( ) says declaration is betrayal of older women"
- Skeptical Science New Research for Week #24 2024, Skeptical Science, Doug Bostrom & Marc Kodack. Skeptical Science's weekly survy of academic climate research and governmental/NGO reports on matters of climate.
- Hurricane Winds Can Destroy Solar Panels, But Developers Are Working to Fortify Them, Inside Clean Energy, Inside Climate News, Kikley Price. "Gale-force winds and dark skies during hurricanes pose major issues for solar infrastructure."
June 16
- 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #24, Skeptical Science, Bärbel Winkler, Doug Bostrom & John Hartz. A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, June 9, 2024 thru Sun, June 16, 2024.
- The Guardian view on the climate crisis and heatwaves: a killer we need to combat | Editorial, Health - The Guardian, Editorial. Britain may be chilly, but from Greece to India, people are dying due to record temperatures. The death toll will grow without urgent action
- Extreme heat to scorch central, southern US on Father’s Day, Weather, CNN, by Ashley R. Williams & Mary Gilbert.
- Once Fruitful, Libyan Village Suffers Climate Crisis, AFP/Barron's, Jihad Dorgham.
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 22 June 2024 by John Mason
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by John Mason in collaboration with members from the Gigafact team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.
Was the Medieval Warm Period a global event?
The Medieval Warm Period was regional, not global.
Between 950-1250 AD, temperatures as warm as those in the mid-20th century were isolated to parts of the Northern Hemisphere. Most of the planet was relatively cool.
The regional nature of the warming indicates that internal variability — how and where energy is moved about within the system — was the main cause. In addition, this was one of the quietest periods of the past 2000 years for volcanic eruptions. Fewer eruptions meant fewer sun-reflecting particles in the air.
The Medieval Warm Period’s warming was also short-lived. The Little Ice Age started soon after and continued until the Industrial Revolution, when our fossil fuel burning intensified.
All of Earth’s regions are now warming, and average global surface temperatures are about 1°C higher than during the Medieval Warm Period.
Current global warming will continue as long as humans keep emitting heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.
Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Sources
Science Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly (Sience)
Nature Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era
Nature No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
Sage Journal The medieval quiet period.
University of Queensland - Medieval warm period
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 20 June 2024 by Doug Bostrom, Marc Kodack
Open access notables
Climate Change Is Leading to a Convergence of Global Climate Distribution, Li et al., Geophysical Research Letters:
The impact of changes in global temperatures and precipitation on climate distribution remains unclear. Taking the annual global average temperatures and precipitation as the origin, this study determined the climate distribution with the distances of temperature and precipitation from their global averages as the X and Y axes. The results showed that during 1980–2019, the global temperature distribution converged toward the mean (convergence), while the precipitation distribution moved away from the mean (divergence). The combined effects of both led to a convergence in the global climate distribution.
Understanding Full-Depth Steric Sea Level Change in the Southwest Pacific Basin Using Deep Argo, Lele & Purkey, Geophysical Research Letters:
Cold, dense waters formed near polar regions in both hemispheres, sink to great depths and fill-up the majority of the world's deep ocean. Compilation of sparse observations of temperature from global ship-based surveys at roughly 10-year intervals worldwide have shown that sequestration of excess atmospheric heat into the deep ocean has caused these waters to warm steadily since the 1990's into the Present. Not only does this warming have implications for changes in large scale ocean circulation, but is also associated with warming-induced sea level rise. Using a new data set collected between 2014 and 2023 from 55 freely drifting robotic floats (Deep Argo) which gather crucial bimonthly temperature and salinity data between the surface ocean and the ocean floor, we find the greatest warming trend at a depth of 5,000 m of 4 ± 0.3 m°C yr−1 and an associated sea level rise rate below 2,000 m of 1.3 ± 1.6 mm dec−1. Deep Argo data being collected in ocean basins worldwide are crucial in providing high resolution data of the warming deep ocean and its implications on global sea level, ocean mixing and large-scale ocean circulation.
Radiative forcing geoengineering under high CO2 levels leads to higher risk of Arctic wildfires and permafrost thaw than a targeted mitigation scenario, Müller et al., Communications Earth & Environment:
Here we use an Earth System Model to analyse the response in Arctic temperatures to radiative geoengineering applied under the representative concentration pathway 8.5 to decrease the radiative forcing to that achieved under the representative concentration pathway 4.5. The three methods Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Marine Cloud Brightening, and Cirrus Cloud Thinning, mitigate the global mean temperature rise, however, under our experimental designs, the projected Arctic temperatures are higher than if the same temperature was achieved under emission mitigation. The maximum temperature increase under Cirrus Cloud Thinning and Marine Cloud Brightening is linked to carbon dioxide plant physiological forcing, shifting the system into climatic conditions favouring the development of fires. Under Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, the Arctic land with temperatures permanently below freezing decreased by 7.8% compared to the representative concentration pathway 4.5. This study concludes that these specific radiative forcing geoengineering designs induce less efficient cooling of the Arctic than the global mean and worsen extreme conditions compared to the representative concentration pathway 4.5.
Discourses of climate inaction undermine public support for 1.5 °C lifestyles, Cherry et al., Global Environmental Change:
Urgent action to tackle the climate crisis will only be possible with significant public support for radical lifestyle change. Arguments that seek to delay climate action and justify inadequate mitigation efforts, often termed ‘discourses of delay’, are widespread within political and media debate on climate change. Here we report the results of novel public deliberation and visioning workshops, conducted across the UK in 2020/2021 to explore visions of a 1.5 °C future. We found that despite very strong public support for many low-carbon lifestyle strategies in principle, entrenched discourses of delay are limiting beliefs that a fair, low-carbon future is possible. Consisting of four overarching narratives of climate inaction (Resisting personal responsibility; Rejecting the need for urgency; Believing change is impossible; and Defending the social contract), this public discourse of delay is characterised by three distinct repertoires (each with its own emotional resonance), that act to weaken support for climate action by producing defensive responses to discussions of low-carbon lifestyle change and undermining public sense of agency.
Growing deviations between elite and non-elite media coverage of climate change in the United States, Bolstad & Victor, Climatic Change:
Nearly all prior media studies focus on the United States and on a small number of elite news sources, notably the national newspapers of record. To widen the aperture, we take advantage of a database (MediaCloud) that covers a much larger array of print and word media: 168 million articles about all subjects, derived from 9000 unique U.S. news sources. Coverage of climate change from the “heartland” sources—dominated by state and local news outlets far from the headquarters of national newspapers of record—has risen 144% from 2011 until 2022. Elite news coverage, however, has risen at twice that pace (299%). Over time, the propensity to cover climate change has diverged. In 2011 there were 104 days when the heartland news sources had more coverage of climate change than elite news outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. By 2022 there were only 11 such days. That year, elite news outlets produced roughly three times the coverage of climate change as heartland news outlets. We also find some differences in the topics covered by these two categories of news sources. Such disparities in the intensity of attention to climate change, along with apparently more subtle variations in topical coverage, are variations that deserve future explanation. They are also a reminder that analysis of climate coverage should choose data sources with care since the narrative around what the public is learning about climate appears to vary substantially between heartland and elite new sources.
Towards effective implementation of the energy efficiency first principle: a theory-based classification and analysis of policy instruments, Mandel & Pató, Energy Research & Social Science:
The energy efficiency first (EE1st) principle, embedded in the European Union's (EU) recast Energy Efficiency Directive, aims to prioritise cost-effective energy efficiency solutions over new energy supply infrastructure. These solutions encompass not only end-use energy efficiency, but also, notably, demand-side flexibility. This research bridges the gap between the theoretical underpinnings of the principle and practical policy implementation. Drawing on market failure theory, it identifies an inherent bias in EU energy markets in favour of energy supply infrastructure. By highlighting the correction of market failures – from externalities to transaction costs – through targeted policy instruments, it presents a theoretical policy intervention logic for EE1st. Based on this, it offers a set of twenty-nine established and emerging policy instruments linked to specific market failures, thus providing a systematic roadmap for EE1st application. The study concludes that levelling the playing field between energy efficiency and energy supply requires a broad policy response.
Phase synchronization between culture and climate forcing, Timmermann et al., Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences:
Over the history of humankind, cultural innovations have helped improve survival and adaptation to environmental stress. This has led to an overall increase in human population size, which in turn further contributed to cumulative cultural learning. During the Anthropocene, or arguably even earlier, this positive sociodemographic feedback has caused a strong decline in important resources that, coupled with projected future transgression of planetary boundaries, may potentially reverse the long-term trend in population growth. Here, we present a simple consumer/resource model that captures the coupled dynamics of stochastic cultural learning and transmission, population growth and resource depletion in a changing environment. The idealized stochastic mathematical model simulates boom/bust cycles between low-population subsistence, high-density resource exploitation and subsequent population decline. For slow resource recovery time scales and in the absence of climate forcing, the model predicts a long-term global population collapse.
From this week's government and NGO section:
Climate Change in the American Mind: Politics & Policy, Spring 2024, Leiserowitz et al., Yale University and George Mason University:
The survey was fielded from April 25 – May 4, 2024. 62% of registered voters would prefer to vote for a candidate for public office who supports action on global warming. This includes 97% of liberal Democrats, 81% of moderate/conservative Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 47% of liberal/moderate Republicans, but only 17% of conservative Republicans. About four in ten registered voters (39%) say a candidate’s position on global warming will be “very important” when they decide who they will vote for in the 2024 presidential election. Of 28 issues asked about, global warming is the 19th most highly ranked voting issue among registered voters (based on the percentage saying it is “very important”). When then asked to choose their most important voting issue, three percent of registered voters chose global warming, making it the 12th highest-ranked most important issue.
Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States: June 2024 Edition, Eisenson, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School
Although many renewable energy facilities are sited without any problem, local opposition often arises. The authors document local and state restrictions against, and opposition to, siting renewable energy projects, as well as energy storage and transmission projects that are closely tied to renewable energy generation. The period covered by this report ranges from as early as 1995 to December 31, 2023. The authors do not make normative judgments as to the legal merits of individual cases or the policy preferences reflected in local opponents’ advocacy, nor as to where any one facility should or should not be sited. Nonetheless, the volume and nature of the restrictions and controversies cataloged demonstrate that local opposition to renewable energy facilities is widespread and growing and that it represents a potentially significant impediment to the achievement of climate goals.
144 articles in 62 journals by 826 contributing authors
Physical science of climate change, effects
An analytic theory for the degree of Arctic Amplification, Zhou et al., Nature Communications Open Access 10.1038/s41467-024-48469-w
Changes in the tropical upper-tropospheric zonal momentum balance due to global warming, Thakur & Sukhatme, Weather and Climate Dynamics Open Access 10.5194/wcd-5-839-2024
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 19 June 2024 by Guest Author
This video includes conclusions of the creator climate scientist Dr. Adam Levy. It is presented to our readers as an informed perspective. Please see video description for references (if any).
Carbon dioxide is the main culprit behind climate change. But in second place is methane: a greenhouse gas stronger than CO2, that's wreaking havoc on our planet. Humans are polluting the atmosphere with methane from a whole host of processes - like fossil fuels, farming, trash. But cutting these methane emissions would be a huge (and easy!) win. So why are emissions of this global warming driving greenhouse gas still going up?
Support ClimateAdam on patreon: https://patreon.com/climateadam
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 18 June 2024 by John Mason, BaerbelW, Ken Rice
On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a "bump" for our ask. This week features "Was 1934 the hottest year on record?". More will follow in the upcoming weeks. Please follow the Further Reading link at the bottom to read the full rebuttal and to join the discussion in the comment thread there.
At a glance
Let's not shy away from the fact that in the contiguous United States, the year 1934 was particularly warm. It was among a cluster of years marked by the notorious droughts known as the 'Dust Bowl' years, during which huge dust-storms were frequent and did great damage to the soils of the Prairies.
But how significant is 1934 in the bigger, global picture? Let's take a look.
The background to this tale involves the NASA GISS temperature dataset. In August 2007, blogger Steven MacIntryre noticed a series of sudden temperature leaps in that dataset. They had occurred early in the year 2000, leading some to speculate that the Y2K computer bug must have been behind them.
NASA investigated. The data used for the NASA GISS record are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA had adjusted the data to filter out spurious excess warming. Sources of such biases are well-known. They include time of observation, non-ideal siting of weather-stations, relocation of them and urban heat island effects.
The specific error was nothing to do with Y2K. It was simply that, from January 2000, NASA were mistakenly using unadjusted data, so all those spurious anomalies were still in there and it looked warmer than it should.
Nobody's perfect and that includes scientists, but science is a self-correcting process. Errors that do occur are corrected when found. Correcting this specific error meant that some six years of temperature data had to be adjusted downwards. That meant that the order of the warmest years was also affected and after adjustment, 1934 and its Dust Bowl heat once again stood out prominently.
That's what happened back then, in a nutshell. Now to look at 1934 in context, with the added benefit of another 17 years of hindsight, of course.
Firstly, the corrected temperature record covered only the Lower 48 - the states of the USA excluding Alaska and Hawaii - where 1934 was indeed a very hot year. Zooming out of the USA - making up around 2% of the world's surface - to the whole globe, however, shows that 1934 was in fact a rather chilly year. In order to understand what's happening to global temperatures, the whole globe - the other 98% - also needs to be considered, year in year out.
Secondly, it may have been possible to attempt crudely dressing-up 1934 as another 'final nail' in the 'global warming coffin' in 2007, but no longer. If you now look at the global league-table of warmest years, the ten hottest of them have occurred since 2010, with 2023 being just the latest record-breaker.
The year 1934 was a very warm one in the United States. No-one disputes that. In fact, it's meteorologically quite interesting. The Dust Bowl years are thought to have been at least partly human-caused - by poor agricultural land-management. But the way temperatures have gone now, 1934 is merely of local, historic importance: a curio to look back at from time to time - and a warning to look after your topsoil!
Please use this form to provide feedback about this new "At a glance" section. Read a more technical version below or dig deeper via the tabs above!
Read more...
1 comments
Posted on 17 June 2024 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Barbara Grady and touches on climate matters connected with current events in US politics. Skeptical Science is prohibited from offering political endorsements of any kind, but our mission is to connect readers with facts in connection with anthropogenic climate change. The respective platforms of the two candidates discussed here are subject to dispassionate analysis based on factual underpinnings, inventoried by this article. Neither this article nor Skeptical Science endorse any candidate, but we do seek to educate readers about facts in connection with climate change. As can be seen here, these facts inexorably end up connected with public policy and thus politics.
Illustration by Samantha Harrington. Photo credits: Justin Lane-Pool/Getty Images, Win McNamee/Getty Images, European Space Agency.
In an empty wind-swept field in Richmond, California, next to the county landfill, a company called RavenSr has plotted out land and won permits to build a factory to convert landfill waste to transportation-grade hydrogen for powering vehicles. Six miles away, Moxion Power has laid the concrete foundation for a factory to make energy storage batteries for freight trucks and mobile uses.
RavenSR and Moxion Power are among more than 300 companies across the U.S. launching clean energy manufacturing projects with the help of tax incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act. Meanwhile, consumers have used the law’s tax credits to purchase 1.46 million climate-friendly electric, plug-in hybrid, or fuel cell cars.
The most far-reaching climate law in history, the Inflation Reduction Act is catalyzing a transition in the U.S. economy toward cleaner energy and cleaner transportation — a shift the International Energy Agency, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others say must happen for the world to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases to the levels scientists say would avert the most catastrophic and irreversible climate chaos.
Those safeguard levels are a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 from 2010 levels and net zero emissions by 2050 to limit global average temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius — a target that 195 countries agreed to in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
The Biden administration’s Department of Energy estimates that the Inflation Reduction Act along with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will drive down U.S. emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by 2030, a conclusion also reached in an independent study in Science.
Combined with new Environmental Protection Agency rules restricting tailpipe emissions from future trucks and cars, limiting power plant emissions, and requiring capping of methane leaks from oil and gas exploration, as well as state and private sector action, the U.S. is on track to reduce emissions 50% by 2030, the Department of Energy forecasts.
But what happens if these climate laws are gutted or reversed?
2030 is less than six years away. What happens in the next four of them will affect our chances of avoiding the worst climate chaos, experts say.
That’s why 2024 is a climate election.
“Why this election is so important and why it is a climate election is because we are out of time,” said Lori Lodes, executive director and co-founder of Climate Power, a nonprofit working on protecting climate policy, speaking to reporters recently.
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 16 June 2024 by BaerbelW, Doug Bostrom, John Hartz
A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, June 9, 2024 thru Sat, June 15, 2024.
Story of the week
A glance at this week's inventory of what experts tell us is extreme weather mayhem juiced by climate change points us in the general direction of our Story of the Week. Writing for Carbon Brief, climate researcher Zeke Hausfather puts our historically unprecedented globally high surface temperature into the larger picture of human-caused climate change, in his analysis What record global heat means for breaching the 1.5C warming limit. 
Have we "reached 1.5C" with no looking back? Depending on data sets we've now flirted with or even kissed this temperature— but we're not yet living with it full time. Hausfather explains why we're not there yet. As part of that he delves into the rather tricky business of identifying exactly when we'll unequivocally crashed through this iconic number. The answer is "it depends," but regardless of measurement methods and reasoning we will definitely arrive at this destination.
1.5C in the rear view mirror: soon, or later? That's partly a matter of perspective. Dr. Hausfather is quite a bit younger than anybody working on our weekly news roundup, so we can't help but chuckle a little at this conclusion:
The findings show that, while the best estimate for crossing 1.5C has moved up by approximately two years compared to Carbon Brief’s earlier 2020 analysis, it remains most likely to happen in the late 2020s or early 2030s – rather than in the next few years.
For us ancients for whom 2015 seems a mere blink of the eye ago, "the next few years" definitely includes the early 2030s. From our viewpoint we're practically already there. In any case, regardless of the subjective nature of time we're running out of calendar pages to deal with our problem.
Stories we promoted this week, by publication date:
Before June 9
- Skeptical Science New Research for Week #23 2024, Skeptical Science, Marc Kodack & Doug Bostrom. Skeptical Science's own weekly compendium of climate research.
- Threatened by rising seas, the first of Panama’s Indigenous islanders are forced to leave, Climate, CNN, Photographs by Edu Ponces & Berta Vicente/RUIDO Photo, Story by Rachel Ramirez & Edu Ponces.
- 8 Young Alaskans Reignite a Court Fight Over Climate Change, Alaska Public Media, Kavitha George.
- As nuclear power flails in the U.S., White House bets big on a revival, Business, Washington Post, Evan Halper. "Price shock, engineering mishaps, long delays and a spate of corruption have not deterred the White House from its nuclear energy ambitions."
- Announcing the World Ocean Day 2024 Action Theme, World Ocean Day, Staff. "We currently face one o" the greatest threats ever to our blue planet and all its inhabitants: the climate crisis. It is all too clear that we need a healthy ocean for a healthy climate, and vice versa, and we need significantly stronger local, national, and international action from both government and corporate leaders. Now. "
- “Time Capsule” Rocks Uncover the Early History of the Earth and the Ocean, Ocean, Smithsonian, Naomi Greenberg. "Zircons that formed 4 billion years ago may hold clues as to what the Earth looked like in its early history and how it went from a fiery ball of lava to the planet we know today. "
- UK general election: Watch out for climate obstructionism, Climate Home News, Freddie Daley & Peter Newell. "Climate sceptic groups and their right-wing media allies have shifted from disputing science to exaggerating the economic costs of climate action and downplaying the benefits"
- Q&A: As Temperatures in Pakistan Top 120 Degrees, There’s Nowhere to Run, Justice & Health, Inside Climate News, Interview by Steve Curwood,. "An environmental lawyer’s frightening report from on the ground in Lahore: animals crumpling, waters rising, crops collapsing, an economy on the brink and millions displaced with nowhere safe to go."
- Climate Misinformation Is Rampant. AI May Be Able to Stop It, E&E News/Scientific American, Francisco "A.J." Camacho & Scott Waldman. "Researchers want to create an AI system that can quickly detect and debunk false or misleading claims about climate change"
- Bonn makes only lukewarm progress to tackle a red-hot climate crisis, Comment, Climate Home News, Partha Hefaz Shaikh. "Comment: At mid-year UN talks, negotiators have achieved little to get more help to those struggling with fiercer floods, cyclones and heatwaves in South Asia"
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 15 June 2024 by SkS-Team
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by Sue Bin Park in collaboration with members from the Skeptical Science team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.
Is ocean acidification from human activities enough to impact marine ecosystems?
Carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are acidifying oceans, disrupting marine ecosystems by dissolving the shells and skeletons of certain organisms.
The ocean absorbs at least 25% of the CO2 released in the atmosphere. CO2 reacts with ocean water (H2O) to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), which releases acidifying hydrogen ions (H+).
Ocean acidification is when the pH level of ocean water decreases due to an increase in hydrogen ions.
Hydrogen ions bind to carbonate, making it more difficult for plankton, coral, and other organisms to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.
Because these organisms serve as food and habitat for other marine life, their decline threatens ocean food chains, and by extension human populations that depend on fisheries.
Since humans began burning fossil fuels around 200 years ago, the oceans have become 30% more acidic — a more rapid change than at any time in the last 50 million years.
Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Sources
Encyclopædia Britannica PH | Definition, Uses, & Facts
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration What is Ocean Acidification?
European Environment Agency Ocean acidification
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 14 June 2024 by BaerbelW
Somewhat surprisingly for what is regarded as a network of professionals, climate science misinformation is getting shared on LinkedIn, joining other channels where this is happening. Several of our recent posts published on LinkedIn have attracted the ire of various commenters who apparently are in denial about human-caused climate change. Based on their and other such comments, we compiled a list of telltale signs to be on the lookout for when reading posts or comments related to human-caused climate change or global warming on LinkedIn, other social media channels and even our own comment section. We hope you find this list helpful as the pointers can serve as warning flags to take a closer look before deciding whether to ignore or accept what has been written.
- The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming is questioned or even attacked outright, even though the basic statements that global warming is real and is mostly caused by humans due to the continued burning of fossil fuels can be called a settled fact - the facts are at least more than settled enough to base our decisions on. Legit discussions can obviously happen about what we should do. For more, please read our explainer about a scientific consensus.
Several studies have shown - depending on what you look at - that the level of agreement in the scientific literature and amongst climate scientist about the major points ranges from 91-100% - usually in the high 90s.When reading comments that provide references, readers should keep in mind that finding references from the 1-3% while ignoring the other 97-99% is a prime example of "cherry picking".
- Reactions via the „laugh“ icon on serious topics like human-caused climate change could either have happened accidentally (unlikely) or be a sign that the commenter doesn‘t quite (want to) grasp or accept scientific findings on the topic (quite likely).
- Comments making claims which seem to contradict our large list of rebuttals will in most likelihood be wrong or misleading or will not rely on scientific research published in high-quality peer-reviewed journals. If in doubt, please head over to sks.to/arguments and check for yourself.
- Comments rattling off many long-debunked myths - i.e. gish-gallops - have the sole aim to waste everybody's time and confuse people. They are best ignored.
Read more...
16 comments
Posted on 13 June 2024 by Doug Bostrom, Marc Kodack
Open access notables
Wildfire smoke impacts lake ecosystems, Farruggia et al., Global Change Biology:
We introduce the concept of the lake smoke-day, or the number of days any given lake is exposed to smoke in any given fire season, and quantify the total lake smoke-day exposure in North America from 2019 to 2021. Because smoke can be transported at continental to intercontinental scales, even regions that may not typically experience direct burning of landscapes by wildfire are at risk of smoke exposure. We found that 99.3% of North America was covered by smoke, affecting a total of 1,333,687 lakes ≥10 ha. An incredible 98.9% of lakes experienced at least 10 smoke-days a year, with 89.6% of lakes receiving over 30 lake smoke-days, and lakes in some regions experiencing up to 4 months of cumulative smoke-days. Herein we review the mechanisms through which smoke and ash can affect lakes by altering the amount and spectral composition of incoming solar radiation and depositing carbon, nutrients, or toxic compounds that could alter chemical conditions and impact biota.
From Denial to the Culture Wars: A Study of Climate Misinformation on YouTube, de Nadal, Environmental Communication:
Climate change is becoming a new front in the culture wars, with YouTube as one of its key arenas. Centered on an “Alternative Influence Network” orbiting Spain’s right-wing populist party Vox, this article examines the underexplored role of YouTube political influencers in propagating climate misinformation. Using thematic analysis, it uncovers instances of “post-denial” narratives that accept the reality of climate change while targeting climate policy and the climate movement, often through conspiracy theories and misogynistic rhetoric. Disagreements extend beyond policy specifics, intertwining with ongoing culture wars against a “woke wave” encompassing feminism, anti-racism, and now environmentalism. Amidst escalating opposition to Net Zero policies, the study sheds light on how these climate narratives reinforce “us” vs “them” binaries and appeal to feelings of resentment among young white males disoriented by rapid cultural change, who increasingly turn to YouTube for news and community.
Climate changes and food-borne pathogens: the impact on human health and mitigation strategy, Awad et al., Climatic Change:
The impact of climate change on food-borne pathogens is multifaceted and includes changes in the environment, agriculture, and human behavior. This review article examines the effect of climate change on food-borne pathogens, explores the connection between climate change and food-borne illness, records the current evidence on the effects of climate change on food-borne pathogens and potential consequences for human health, highlights knowledge gaps and areas for further research, and summarizes the strategies for mitigation and adaptation.
Uncertain Pathways to a Future Safe Climate, Sherwood et al., Earth's Future:
Global climate change is often thought of as a steady and approximately predictable physical response to increasing forcings, which then requires commensurate adaptation. But adaptation has practical, cultural and biological limits, and climate change may pose unanticipated global hazards, sudden changes or other surprises–as may societal adaptation and mitigation responses. These poorly known factors could substantially affect the urgency of mitigation as well as adaptation decisions. We outline a strategy for better accommodating these challenges by making climate science more integrative, in order to identify and quantify known and novel physical risks including those arising from interactions with ecosystems and society. We need to do this even–or especially–when they are highly uncertain, and to explore risks and opportunities associated with mitigation and adaptation responses by engaging across disciplines. We argue that upcoming climate assessments need to be more risk-aware, and suggest ways of achieving this.
From this week's government and NGO section:
Navigating the Transition to Net-zero Emissions in Southeast Asia – Energy Security, the Role of Gaseous Energy Carriers and Renewables-based Electrification, Fekete et al., German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action:
The authors emphasize that rapid expansion of renewable electricity and electrification of energy end users is essential, not only to achieve climate mitigation targets but also to boost energy security and economic development across Southeast Asia. Focusing on Indonesia, Thailand, Viet Nam, and the Philippines the authors analyze net-zero pathways under two different decarbonization scenarios – one centered on reducing fossil fuel use through the deep electrification of energy demand, and the other achieving these reductions through the use of renewable gases such as hydrogen.
The Incredible Inefficiency of the Fossil Energy System, Walter et al., RMI:
Today’s fossil energy system is incredibly inefficient: almost two-thirds of all primary energy is wasted in energy production, transportation, and use, before fossil fuel has done any work or produced any benefit. That means over $4.6 trillion per year, almost 5% of global GDP and 40% of what we spend on energy, goes up in smoke due to fossil inefficiency. Literally. The winds are changing, though, as fossil technologies are undercut by more efficient alternatives. End-use efficiency is driving out fossil fuels, reinforced by three new tailwinds that upend the energy landscape: renewable electricity, localization, and electrification. These drivers will allow us to drastically cut down on energy waste and phase out fossil fuels.
140 articles in 59 journals by 851 contributing authors
Physical science of climate change, effects
Changes in Compound Hot Extremes over the Mid–High Latitudes of Asia and the Underlying Mechanisms, Jiang et al., Journal of Climate 10.1175/jcli-d-23-0502.1
Observations of climate change, effects
Air–sea heat fluxes variations in the Southern Atlantic Ocean: Present-day and future climate scenarios, Moura et al., International Journal of Climatology 10.1002/joc.8517
Analysis of tropical nights in Spain (1970–2023): Minimum temperatures as an indicator of climate change, Correa et al., International Journal of Climatology Open Access pdf 10.1002/joc.8510
Disastrous effects of climate change on High Mountain Asia, Cui et al., Advances in Climate Change Research Open Access 10.1016/j.accre.2024.06.004
Read more...
0 comments
Posted on 12 June 2024 by Guest Author
This is a re-post of an article from the Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler published on June 3, 2024.
I have an oped in the New York Times (gift link) about this. For a long time, a common refrain about the energy transition was that renewable energy needed to become cheaper before it could replace fossil fuels. That milestone has now been reached, with solar and wind power often costing less than oil, gas, and coal.
This is especially true if you add in the external costs of fossil fuels, such as the costs of air pollution that kills millions of people each year and the costs of fossil fuels contributing to geopolitical instability.
However, instead of the market naturally transitioning to these cheaper and cleaner energy sources, fossil fuel companies are leveraging their enormous political influence to hinder this shift. They employ tactics such as lobbying, spreading disinformation, and funding politicians who support fossil fuels, all in an effort to maintain their dominance and profits in the energy market.
My NYT piece focused on disinformation, but this is just a small piece of the picture — there is a lot more going on than I could fit into a 1,000-word op-ed.
Read more...
1 comments
Arguments
