NB4 – A new neologism applied to never before encountered climate extremes

‘NB4′ is a very useful neologism for our times and we all need to seriously think about why we need to invent this term for the crescendo of climate related catastrophes and what that is telling us about our species’ prospects for the future. And note, with one exception, the Yale Climate Connections article below only lists NB4s affecting North America. Based on the last few years of news, most countries in the world would be able to list their own crescendos of NB4s.

In Australia conspicuous NB4s include the unprecedented flooding in 2019 of NW Queensland that killed around 600,000 cattle and untold wildlife, the 2019-2020 Black Summer wildfires burning more than 18 MILLION hectares in eastern and southern Australia, and even the mid June flooding and storm damage in Victoria – equivalent to what a Cat 3 Cyclone might cause.

The exception in the Climate Connections article is, of course, the plethora of NB4s associated with the ‘amplification’ of global warming in the Arctic, including the NB4s of ice melting, high temperature records, and associated wildfires.

The unmentioned elephant in the room of this article is to think about what is the climax that the crescendo of NB4s is building to. If we do not stop the process causing the crescendo, the inevitable climax will be the sixth global mass extinction, including our own species extinction — and this will be in the near term.

It is time for the Congress and its citizen constituents, decision-makers of all sorts, and opinion-makers of all political persuasions [and particularly in Australia] to acknowledge that human-driven climate change is undeniably causing catastrophic effects in ways never seen before. And those often-calamitous effects are not only in the “usual suspect” places and the results of predictable reasons.

[Extracted from the article below]

If we are to have a future, acknowledgement of the reality must be urgently followed by total mobilization and action to slow, stop, and reverse global warming. Because the process is clearly accelerating (as demonstrated by the rapidly growing sequence of NB4s), if we don’t do this pretty damn quick it will be too late as Earth’s Climate System flips us and our biosphere into its Hothouse Earth mode.

This is why we must Vote Climate One to elect Parliamentarians who will put stopping global warming as the number one priority guiding their actions in government.




‘Never Before’ (NB4) extreme weather events … and near-misses

by Gary Yohe, Yale Climate Connections – September 9, 2021,

A recurring and troubling pattern of first-time historic weather events provides firm support for citizen and leaders to acknowledge human causation and take needed needed mitigation and adaptation steps.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy visits storm-ravaged Mullica Hill
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy visits storm-ravaged Mullica Hill on September 2, viewing damages caused by ‘remnants’ of Hurricane Ida. (Photo credit: Edwin J. Torres/NJ Governor’s Office)

Attributing extreme events to climate change – including those highly reported though the media – is a difficult task frequently requiring lots time to complete rigorously. The usual mantra is that climate change did not cause X, but climate change did contribute significantly to its intensity and/or its frequency. Which raises the question: “By how much?”

But experience on the ground sometimes makes that attribution to climate change a no brainer. How so? Because no other influence can explain many of the recent events because there is no precedent for their having ever been happened before. Call them “Never Before” in history events (NB4s).

The mundane “Who cares?” version of an NB4 event can be found in the time series of an index of annual mean surface temperature. The five-year trend comparison has been de rigueur for decades, but over just the past 20 years, the “This has been the hottest year ever” framing has been assigned to five of those years.

Another example of a time series worrisome to many experts involves Hurricane Harvey, in 2017. Harvey stalled over Houston for nearly two days.  It dropped 42 inches of rain while it was just hanging around with nowhere to go.  Stalling of hurricanes has been attributed to a reduced temperature difference between the poles and the tropics. It is a signature of climate change that now includes Ida over Louisiana.  In Houston, climate change caused the third “500-year flooding” event in four years – certainly a damaging NB4. 

In the summer of 2020, leaking methane from the melting permafrost across tundra in Siberia released methane that spontaneously ignited when temperatures well above the Arctic Circle exceeded 100oF. The high temperatures are a product of global warming, but the interaction with the tundra is a very troubling NB4.

Hurricane Ida was the second Category 4 (nearly a Cat 5) storm to make landfall in Louisiana in two years.  Ida tied the record for gaining intensity when approaching landfall. The cause of that rapid intensification? Temperature of the Gulf of Mexico waters provided fuel to buttress the intensity. Those water temperatures across the Gulf ranged between 88oF and 90oF to a depth of 150 feetnever before in recorded history.

Subsequently, how is it possible that more than 15 times as many people died from exposure to Ida in eight mid-Atlantic states than in Mississippi and Louisiana combined? Because the severity was unexpected, and many people were unprepared.

In New York City, sustained rain for one hour exceeded three inches during Hurricane Henri in early August, an all-time record.  Less than two weeks later, the remnants of Ida piled on with a new all-time record of 3.15 inches for New York City and 3.24 inches for Newark, New Jersey. Surely another NB4, and especially for piling on. IDA was an NB4 event at least three times over.

Who should care? Surely insurance companies should … and do. They diversify by geography against severe storm events. They increasingly face storm liabilities not only in the anticipated urban and rural and coastal areas along the Gulf of Mexico, but also, and increasingly, in the more densely populated broadly distributed areas of New York City, New Jersey, and even Philadelphia. The former they’ve anticipated. The latter, not so much.

And then, not to be outdone or forgotten, there are the rampant wildfires in California: 2018 brought the largest fire in Cal Fire’s recorded history. The following year, 2019, was more modest in its aggression, but 2020 erupted with a new largest fire in history.  The conflagration was also burning at the very same time as the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th largest fires in history. Why the intensity? Megadrought, pine bark beetles that had not suffered through their usual winter freeze for a decade, and extreme record heat combined with record dry lightning.  2020 was an NB4 year.

This calendar year, 2021, has shown no sign of backing down from the challenge to be the worst. It, too, boasts an NB4 claim not only from the same causes, but also for a different reason: No California fire in history had ever climbed the Sierra Nevada mountains and rolled down the eastern side toward Nevada. The Dixie fire accomplished that heretofore-unprecedented feat. But wait, as the cheap cable commercials say, there’s more: A month or so later, the Caldor fire did the same thing, soon seriously threatening South Lake Tahoe for the first time in history. Consider it an NB4 two-fer.

With regard to heat waves, look across the U.S. Pacific Northwest and western Canada. Seattle, for instance, experienced three successive days in the summer of 2021 with maximum temperatures of more than 100oF (June 26-28, 2021). In all of prior recorded history, Seattle had seen only three days above 100oF (July 16, 1941; July 20, 1994; and July 29, 2009). Portland, Oregon, and other areas – places where residential air conditioning are few and far between – fared no better and in some places worse.

And then there is rain in Greenland for the first time, the biggest tornado (spawned by Ida) in New Jersey history, seven inches of rain in Central Park tying the 1927 record, and so on …

It is time for the Congress and its citizen constituents, decision-makers of all sort, and opinion-makers of all political persuasions to acknowledge that human-driven climate change is undeniably causing catastrophic effects in ways never seen before. And those often-calamitous effects are not only in the “usual suspect” places and the results of predictable reasons.

They are occurring unpredictably and in surprising and unexpect[ed], and therefore often [the] least prepared, places.

The hottest summer most Americans have ever lived through

Gary Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. He served as convening lead author for multiple chapters and the Synthesis Report for the IPCC from 1990 through 2014 and was Vice-Chair of the Third US National Climate Assessment.

Views expressed in this post are those of its author(s), not necessarily all Vote Climate One members.

How we need to transform our global society if we are to survive the 21st Century

Absolutely everyone concerned in any way with our futures [humanity, ourselves, our families] on our fragile planet Earth must read Umair Haque’s latest essay linked below.

This man is a true spokesman for reason, science and politics. Here he explains what we need what we need to transform in order to continue living for long in this world. I also try to communicate these things, but Umair does it far better here than I have ever done.

Our civilisation needs a great transformation

We need three decades of transformation, but are we capable of it?

Read this article by Umair Haque at Eudaimonia & Co. Read more from Umair @Medium

Where Australia is concerned, the only area where I disagree with Umair’s sequence of priorities is that our first order of business must be to fix the political frameworks we live in that are specifically managed by Liberal/National party puppet governments that work across many levels to stop or delay us from doing anything that might inconvenience their masters representing special interests in the fossil fuel industry and their friends. Only then will we be able to devote our full interests to completing the moral and economic transformations that will see us progress towards solving the existential climate emergency. And there is very little time left (if any) to actually do that.

We all need to work together to achieve his prescription. Think seriously about what he says, and then lets get to work.

Our Vote Climate One guide provides a simple way for you to use our preferential voting system to vote for only those candidates who will support and work for immediate action on climate change. Our stoplight system doesn’t tell you who to vote for, but does flag those parties or individuals whose record suggests they are more likely to support the special interests and others trying to delay action than prioritize actions to deal with the existential climate emergency.

Views expressed in this post are those of its author(s), not necessarily all Vote Climate One members.

Governments must allow market forces to continue driving down the cost of energy.

Ars Technica explains that the decreasing cost of renewables is unlikely to plateau any time soon

Past projections of energy costs have consistently underestimated just how cheap renewable energy would be in the future, as well as the benefits of rolling them out quickly, according to a new report out of the Institute of New Economic Thinking at the University of Oxford.
The report makes predictions about more than 50 technologies such as solar power, offshore wind, and more, and it compares them to a future that still runs on carbon. “It’s not just good news for renewables. It’s good news for the planet,” Matthew Ives, one of the report’s authors and a senior researcher at the Oxford Martin Post-Carbon Transition Programme, told Ars.

And yet, our COALition Government is still working assiduously to hinder any actions that may diminish the profits or ‘harm’ the fossil fuel industry’s continued profligate mining and burning of greenhouse gas emitting carbon-based fuels. By driving continued global warming, these emissions fueling the accelerating climate emergency of droughts, storms, wildfires and rising sea-levels. If the warming is not stopped and reversed we will soon be seeing global famines, economic and social collapses, and mass extinctions (including our own species) as positive feedbacks drive increased greenhouse emissions from soils, burning forests, dying and drying wetlands, and thawing permafrost, plus additional warming enabled by melting polar ice and global ‘dimming’ (where the world absorbs a greater percentage of the solar energy received every day).

We must replace the COALition fossil fuel puppets in our Parliaments with genuine representatives of the people who will work with the economic reality that we must replace greenhouse gas emitting industries with those don’t, and may even engineer effective solutions for recapturing and sequestering some of what was emitted in the past.

Vote Climate One won’t tell you how you should vote. However, we will show you which candidates we think will actively work to help us develop a sustainable future versus those who seem to be indifferent or are actively working to protect their puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry from any changes that might harm their short-term special interests.


The decreasing cost of renewables unlikely to plateau anytime soon

Early price forecasts underestimated how good we’d get at making green energy

Doug Johnson in Ars Technica – 10/4/2021, 8:07 AM

Past projections of energy costs have consistently underestimated just how cheap renewable energy would be in the future, as well as the benefits of rolling them out quickly, according to a new report out of the Institute of New Economic Thinking at the University of Oxford.

The report makes predictions about more than 50 technologies such as solar power, offshore wind, and more, and it compares them to a future that still runs on carbon. “It’s not just good news for renewables. It’s good news for the planet,” Matthew Ives, one of the report’s authors and a senior researcher at the Oxford Martin Post-Carbon Transition Programme, told Ars.

The paper used probabilistic cost forecasting methods—taking into account both past data and current and ongoing technological developments in renewables—for its findings. It also used large caches of data from sources such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and Bloomberg. Beyond looking at the cost (represented as dollar per unit of energy production over time), the report also represents its findings in three scenarios: a fast transition to renewables, a slow transition, and no transition at all.

Compared to sticking with fossil fuels, a quick shift to renewables could mean trillions of dollars in savings, even without accounting for things like damages caused by climate change or any co-benefits from the reduced pollution. Even beyond the savings, rolling out renewable energy sources could help the world limit global warming to 1.5º C. According to the report, if solar, wind, and the myriad other green energy tools followed the deployment trends they are projected to see in the next decade, in 25 years the world could potentially see a net-zero energy system.

“The energy transition is also going to save us money. We should be doing it anyway,” Ives said.

Plateau, or no?

The cost for renewable energy has consistently dropped as the world started its transition away from fossil fuels. Solar, for instance, is now cheaper than the creation of new coal or gas-fired power plants, according to an International Energy Agency (IEA) report. However, several reports in the past have suggested that, at some point or another, the falling costs of renewables will begin to level out. For instance, the same IEA report suggests that offshore wind prices will begin to level off now. Advertisement

However, another recent paper reviewed projections for the future of renewable resources and also found that much of the earlier research underestimated future cost reductions in the field. According to Ives, past reports consistently underestimate the technological advancements that are leading to the continued decrease in the price of renewables. Ives’ paper suggests that the models used in these other forecasts have had two problems: they make assumptions about the maximum growth rates of renewables, and they use “floor costs,” a point at which the prices can’t fall further.

Ives’ report focuses mainly on the process of technological advancement, which is part of what has made renewables cheaper. Renewables have routinely performed beyond the expectations of previous papers. “They’ve been getting these forecasts wrong for quite some time,” Ives said. “You can see we’ve consistently broken through those forecasts again and again.”

The Institute of New Economic Thinking report doesn’t place a hard deadline on a cost plateau for renewables. Rather than there being a plateau caused by advancements, Ives said the greater likelihood is that the prices will decrease slower once things like solar and wind end up dominating the market. At that point, technological advances may very well still happen, but they might not be rolled out as frequently as they are now. “It’s the deployment that slows it down,” Ives said.

“Overly pessimistic”

This largely fits with IRENA’s finding as well, according to Michael Taylor. He’s a senior analyst with the group, which recently released its own report. According to Taylor, the group found that the cost-reduction drivers—improved technology, supply chains, scalability, and manufacturing processes—for solar and wind are likely to continue at least for the next 10 to 15 years. It’s possible that previous forecasts were conservative in their estimations, he said.

“I would expect they’re overly pessimistic,” Taylor told Ars.

However, he noted that some issues might see the reductions slow down. The pandemic, for instance, disrupted global supply chains and made it harder to obtain some essential materials, like the polysilicon used in solar panels. There are also some barriers to fully implementing renewables, such as oil and gas subsidies, public opinion, permitting, etc.

“Just on purely economic grounds, there are increasing benefits to consumers to be had by accelerating the rollout of renewable power generation,” Taylor said. “We’d encourage policy makers to look very seriously at trying to remove the barriers that currently exist.”

Views expressed in this post are those of its author(s), not necessarily all Vote Climate One members.

We need to transform global society to survive the 21st Century

Absolutely everyone concerned in any way with our futures [humanity, ourselves, our families] on our fragile planet Earth must read Umair Haque’s latest essay linked below.

This man is a true spokesman for reason, science and politics. Here he explains what we need what we need to transform in order to continue living for long in this world. I also try to communicate these things, but Umair does it far better here than I havedone.

Our civilisation needs a great transformation

We need three decades of transformation, but are we capable of it?

Read this article by Umair Haque at Eudaimonia & Co. Read more from Umair @Medium

Where Australia is concerned, the only area where I disagree with Umair’s sequence of priorities is that our first order of business must be to fix the political frameworks we live in that are specifically managed by Liberal/National party puppet governments who work across many levels to stop or delay us from doing anything that might inconvenience their masters representing special interests in the fossil fuel industry and their friends. Only then will we be able to devote our full interests to completing the moral and economic transformations that will see us progress towards solving the existential climate emergency. And there is very little time left (if any) to actually do that.

We all need to work together to achieve his prescription. Think seriously about what he says, and then lets get to work.

Our Vote Climate One Traffic Light Voting System provides a simple way for you to use our preferential voting system to vote for only those candidates who will support and work for immediate action on climate change. Our stoplight system doesn’t tell you who to vote for, but does flag those parties or individuals whose record suggests they are more likely to support the special interests and others trying to delay action than prioritize actions to deal with the existential climate emergency.

If we can get to work soon on the issues that really matter, perhaps we will be able to leave our offspring with a hopeful future.

Walking towards the unknown future.
Views expressed in this post are those of its author(s), not necessarily all Vote Climate One members.

Governments must allow markets to drive down energy costs

Ars Technica explains that the decreasing cost of renewables is unlikely to plateau any time soon

Past projections of energy costs have consistently underestimated just how cheap renewable energy would be in the future, as well as the benefits of rolling them out quickly, according to a new report out of the Institute of New Economic Thinking at the University of Oxford.
The report makes predictions about more than 50 technologies such as solar power, offshore wind, and more, and it compares them to a future that still runs on carbon. “It’s not just good news for renewables. It’s good news for the planet,” Matthew Ives, one of the report’s authors and a senior researcher at the Oxford Martin Post-Carbon Transition Programme, told Ars.

And yet, our COALition Government is still working assiduously to hinder any actions that may diminish the profits or ‘harm’ the fossil fuel industry’s continued profligate mining and burning of greenhouse gas emitting carbon-based fuels. By driving continued global warming, these emissions fueling the accelerating climate emergency of droughts, storms, wildfires and rising sea-levels. If the warming is not stopped and reversed we will soon be seeing global famines, economic and social collapses, and mass extinctions (including our own species) as positive feedbacks drive increased greenhouse emissions from soils, burning forests, dying and drying wetlands, and thawing permafrost, plus additional warming enabled by melting polar ice and global ‘dimming’ (where the world absorbs a greater percentage of the solar energy received every day).

We must replace the COALition fossil fuel puppets in our Parliaments with genuine representatives of the people who will work with the economic reality that we must replace greenhouse gas emitting industries with those don’t, and may even engineer effective solutions for recapturing and sequestering some of what was emitted in the past.

Vote Climate One won’t tell you how you should vote. However, we will show you which candidates we think will actively work to help us develop a sustainable future versus those who seem to be indifferent or are actively working to protect their puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry from any changes that might harm their short-term special interests.

By Doug Johnson, 04/10/2021 in Ars Technica

The decreasing cost of renewables unlikely to plateau anytime soon: The decreasing cost of renewables unlikely to plateau anytime soon

Past projections of energy costs have consistently underestimated just how cheap renewable energy would be in the future, as well as the benefits of rolling them out quickly, according to a new report out of the Institute of New Economic Thinking at the University of Oxford.

The report makes predictions about more than 50 technologies such as solar power, offshore wind, and more, and it compares them to a future that still runs on carbon. “It’s not just good news for renewables. It’s good news for the planet,” Matthew Ives, one of the report’s authors and a senior researcher at the Oxford Martin Post-Carbon Transition Programme, told Ars.

The paper used probabilistic cost forecasting methods—taking into account both past data and current and ongoing technological developments in renewables—for its findings. It also used large caches of data from sources such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and Bloomberg. Beyond looking at the cost (represented as dollar per unit of energy production over time), the report also represents its findings in three scenarios: a fast transition to renewables, a slow transition, and no transition at all.

Compared to sticking with fossil fuels, a quick shift to renewables could mean trillions of dollars in savings, even without accounting for things like damages caused by climate change or any co-benefits from the reduced pollution. Even beyond the savings, rolling out renewable energy sources could help the world limit global warming to 1.5º C. According to the report, if solar, wind, and the myriad other green energy tools followed the deployment trends they are projected to see in the next decade, in 25 years the world could potentially see a net-zero energy system.

“The energy transition is also going to save us money. We should be doing it anyway,” Ives said.

Read the complete article….

We need to elect a government who can actually understand and navigate these issues to fight the climate emergency. The COALition parties and their fellow travelers are puppets of the fossil fuel industry and related special interests. These puppets and charlatans need to be replaced by rational candidates who have committed to put action on the climate emergency at the top of their to-do list if elected. Vote Climate One’s Traffic Light Voting System will give you a lot of information to help you pick the candidate(s) who are most likely to respond to the emergency as you would hope.

Give our offspring some hope for a bright future — Vote Climate One.

Views expressed in this post are those of its author(s), not necessarily all Vote Climate One members.

What our COALition Government politicians need to think about before the COP-21 meeting in Glasgow

Michelle Grattan in the Guardian says, “Multiple doctors’ organisations, led by the Australian Medical Association, and a major farm lobby have called on the federal government to boost Australia’s climate change ambition, as pressure mounts on Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce to finalise a deal ahead of the Glasgow conference.”

Doctors and farmers turn up heat on Morrison ahead of Glasgow

Michelle Grattan in the Guardian (Aus.)
September 14, 2021

This pressure is still based on a dangerously ‘optimistic’ IPCC view of the ‘probable’ future. The IPCC view does not factor in the last two or three years of marked acceleration in NB4 extreme climate events or consider the likely consequences if the world is still warming past 2050 or 2100.

The recent crescendo of NB4 events, combined with a longer look into the future suggests that global warming is starting to ‘run away’ from our limited capacity to actually stop and reverse the warming. If we fail to do this, we are not just faced with some crop failures and an excessive number of heat-related deaths; but rather total collapse of our agricultural and social systems, and inevitable human extinction along with most other large and complex organisms sharing the planet with us.

We need immediate and sustained action to control and reverse global warming, and any politician not working to help achieve this should be immediately turfed out of office and replaced by someone who will work for us, rather than the fossil fuel special interests and their friends.

Our Vote Climate One guide provides a simple way for you to use our preferential voting system to vote for only those candidates who will support and work for immediate action on climate change. Our stoplight system doesn’t tell you who to vote for, but does flag those parties or individuals whose record suggests they are more likely to support the special interests and others trying to delay action than prioritize actions to deal with the existential climate emergency.

Views expressed in this post are those of its author(s), not necessarily all Vote Climate One members.