For 20 years now, Ken Nedimyer has been strapping on his scuba gear and diving into the waters off the Florida coast in a desperate effort to restore coral reefs that have been decimated by climate change and pollution. In 2019, he founded his latest venture, Reef Renewal USA. The group’s YouTube channel shows Nedimyer and other members underwater, carefully attaching nursery-grown coral to structures designed to build healthy reefs.

“We’re working hard under pressure with innovation, speed, and efficiency to repopulate our coral reefs,” the narrator says.

Diver-conservationists like Nedimyer will lose the race against time, scientists say, unless humanity acts quickly to end emissions of climate-warming pollution. In the Southern Hemisphere’s Coral Sea, home of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, extreme temperatures have recently hit their highest in 400 years, according to an article in the journal Nature.

“If we don’t divert from our current course, our generation will likely witness the demise of one of Earth’s great natural wonders, the Great Barrier Reef,” paleoclimatologist Ben Henley at the University of Melbourne told the New York Times.

‘Out of sight’

According to a 2023 Pew Research poll, a majority of Americans consider global warming to be a major threat. If you drill down a bit and ask this group which ecosystem most concerns them, odds are they’ll cite tropical rainforests, or maybe alpine areas or the Arctic tundra.

And they’re not wrong to be concerned about these important communities. But our terrestrial bias blinds us to what is arguably an even more endangered ecosystem lying beneath the ocean’s surface.

“Coral reefs suffer from an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ dilemma,” said Jessica Levy, a marine biologist working for the Florida-based Coral Restoration Foundation.

“What we’re looking at is the potential loss of an entire ecosystem, which we’ve never experienced in human history,” Levy said, “and I don’t think anyone wants to find out what that would mean if we had a complete collapse of our coral-reef ecosystems.”

Read more...

0 comments


China and India are so big. Do my country’s climate actions even matter?

Posted on 26 August 2024 by dana1981

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections

At a Republican presidential debate in 2023, several candidates articulated a common sentiment about whose climate policies really matter.

“If you want to go and really change the environment, then we need to start telling China and India that they have to lower their emissions,” said Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and ultimate runner-up to Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primary race. “We also need to take on the international world and say, ‘OK, India and China, you’ve got to stop polluting.’”

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina agreed, saying, “The places where they are continuing to increase [climate pollution] – Africa, 950 million people; India, over a billion; China, over a billion.”

It’s true that China and India are each home to just over 1.4 billion people. Both have rapidly growing economies that largely depend on fossil fuel energy. China is responsible for about one-quarter of annual climate-warming pollution, and together with India, the two countries account for one-third of yearly global emissions (the U.S. accounts for about 11%).

Given the size of the economies of China and India, it’s understandable to wonder if the climate actions of smaller countries matter. But they do, for several reasons: because the Chinese and Indian governments are making great efforts to deploy climate solutions; because China and India are responsible for much lower per-person and historical climate pollution than many other countries; and crucially, because the climate crisis can only be averted if every country does its part.

Read more...

0 comments


2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

Posted on 25 August 2024 by BaerbelW, Doug Bostrom, John Hartz

A listing of 30 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, August 18, 2024 thru Sat, August 24, 2024.

Story of the week

Our Story of the Week is another stab at "connecting the dots," drawing a line between two different stories sharing common foundations.

First there's Emily Atkin writing for HEATED with a critical commentary on Elon Musk, in Why vilify the oil and gas industry?As detailed by Atkin, in a recent interview with the current US presidential GOP party nominee Musk made an odd statement, one that with all charity can only be interpreted as remarkably chumpish and naive. Musk asserted in connection with climate change that "I don’t think we should vilify the oil and gas industry." Unsurprisingly this article generated a lot of buzz in social media. Musk's assertion is starkly at odds with the fossil fuel industry's amply documented footprints of concerted, effective deception as recorded in public perception, public policy— and certainly not least— investigative journalism.

Assuming for a moment that Musk is somehow genuinely ignorant of a rich and obvious historical record, his information and cogitation could be improved by reading another article we shared this week, Oil firms and dark money fund push by Republican states to block climate laws by Peter Stone, writing for The Guardian. Stone's piece is certainly important in terms of ongoing situational awareness. But except in terms of details there's fundamentally little new in this article for anybody generally familiar with the struggle between the fossil fuel industry's desperate effort to prolong monetization of its outmoded and dangerous resouces versus modernization and cleanup of our energy systems. How a person of Musk's wide curiosity can remain oblivious to such activities is a true mystery— and beggars belief.

For decades the fossil fuel industry has been fighting tooth and nail to preserve the anachronistic revenue stream it enjoys. Against the trillions of dollars of revenue at stake, a few hundred milllions spent on paying for favorable legislation and judicial bench-stuffing is not even noise on the bottom line. It doesn't need Musk's genius to see this but rather only a few minutes of attention and an easy Google search, by any person of average intelligence.

It's hard to credit that anybody of Musk's intelligence and insight into the materiality of energy supplies could truly be so ignorant. But ignorance is innocent, so let's be generous and call Elon Musk ignorant rather than a liar.

Elon Musk can also fairly be seen as a brutally pragmatic technological visionary, a person with a strong record of success as defined by context. In company with Nissan (first to offer a practical and affordable mass market EV) his automotive company has delivered a powerful and largely positive object lesson to the entire transport sector. Meanwhile, Musk's SpaceX is littering the skies with a reasonably useful but also problematic constellation of communications satellites. The latter system's impacts on astronomy and (more urgently) a burgeoning orbtal debris threat create a puzzling inconsistency in terms of Musk's avowed inclinations toward sustainability. 

Musk also seems increasingly burderned by counterproductive ideological baggage, much along the lines of Henry Ford who was another earth-shaking titan of industry, Henry Ford. Elon Musk and Henry Ford share some strong resemblances in terms of single-handed upheaval of large segments of the industrial sector. Yet for all his brilliance at efficient vertically integrated manufacturing, Ford stepped outside of his lane of competence and ultimately was heard apologizing for and disclaiming his own publications, which diverged far from matters of industrial prowess and dived into a sewer of bigotry. 

Although far removed from Ford's particular fallibility, Musk seems to be following a roughly parallel path of plutocratic downfall as did Ford, dabbling in matters outside his core skill set. Unlike Ford, Musk's extracurricular inclinations are not expressed as feelings of hatred of a population but rather by displays of expediently  selective or truly genuine ignorance, as exemplified in his facile or shallow exculpation of the fossil fuel indiustry for its truly baroque record of deceptions and prevarications. 

When Elon Musk says we shouldn't vilify the fossil fuel industry, everybody can agree he's right about the working class members of that sector. But Musk is plainly completely wrong about this industry's leadership. He has only to scrolll a wee bit or pick up a newspaper to learn better. After all, Stone's exposé is part of a practically daily sunrise of dayllight shed on the dark doings of oil, gas and coal commerce. One need not be a rocket scientist to join the clue train. 

Before August 18

Read more...

0 comments


Fact brief - Is decreased cosmic ray activity driving global warming?

Posted on 24 August 2024 by Guest Author, John Mason

FactBriefSkeptical 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 from the Gigafact team in collaboration with John Mason. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.

Is decreased cosmic ray activity driving global warming?

NoOver 50 years of data has produced no evidence that cosmic rays are driving global warming.

While some studies attribute some small contribution to decreased cosmic ray activity, there is a scientific consensus that CO2 is the primary factor driving temperature increases worldwide.

Galactic cosmic rays are high-energy particles released by stars of the Milky Way and other galaxies. These rays hit Earth’s upper atmosphere and produce charged particles called ions.

It is suggested these ions cause an increase in cloud cover, which would shield Earth from radiation and prevent warming; thus, it has been proposed that decreased cosmic ray activity is causing rising temperatures. However, causal links between cosmic rays, clouds, and warming have been debunked by decades of data.

A 2017 paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research found the effects of cosmic rays on clouds insignificant compared to that of natural emissions like wildfires and volcanoes.

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

Encyclopedia Britannica Cosmic ray

Scientific American Cosmic Rays Not Causing Climate Change

JGR Atmospheres Causes and importance of new particle formation in the present-day and preindustrial atmospheres

JGR Space Physics Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?

Environmental Research Letters Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover

Read more...

0 comments