Corrupt leaders, casual media, gullible believers

William P. Hall on April 26, 2022

This is the recipe for extinction when facing existential catastrophe. A lesson on the difference between thinking and believing

We humans face a very real risk of runaway global warming that we have triggered by burning fossil carbon accumulated over millions of years in around 150 years. We have already passed the trigger points where the warming will continue without further human contributions; and are approaching the point of no return where nothing that humans could do would stop positive feedbacks from continuing the warming until Earth’s “Hothouse” state is reached.

Rather than promoting and facilitating effective responses to control and resolve the crisis, much of the world’s media and political ‘leadership’ seems to be working to primarily to promote and protect the continued growth of the fossil fuel industry from ‘harm’ by citizens more concerned to promote and protect their families from the existential consequences of runaway warming.

The crisis

Climate Sentinel News has presented a plethora of fact-based science that Earth’s Climate System is being driven by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions towards a point of no return.

Here, increasing global temperatures will generate enough natural positive feedbacks to ‘run away’ into a global ‘hothouse’ of lethally high temperatures and insanely extreme weather. Given the exponential nature of positive feedbacks, only a few more decades of heating will drive global temperatures to extremes that will be lethal to most life – resulting in global mass extinction for most large and complex organisms — including humans.

A fundamental problem is the ease by which many people are conned by marketeers, faith-healers, demagogues and other humbuggers that tell them what they want to believe and that there is nothing to fear (i.e., ‘this is coal – – don’t be ‘fraid, don’t be scared‘)….

Facts vs Beliefs

Some of our religions and many of our political ‘leaders’ try to teach us that our “beliefs” are all-important. They teach that we must accept and believe in whatever ‘truth’ they teach by ‘faith and faith alone’ — at least that was what I was being taught in Sunday school shortly before refusing to go any more. (Fortunately my parents were easy enough about religion that they accepted my decision – others haven’t been so lucky).

Science teaches us that we need to base our decisions and actions on what we think and know about reality based on facts and evidence provided by the world we live in. This gives us the best chances to anticipate and react rationally to whatever the real-world throws at us.

Although I tacitly understood most of this from my science education, it was a master machinist who had a vast knowledge of what you could do with a block of metal from many years of hands on experience, that taught me the deeply visceral difference between believing and thinking.

As I finished my BS degree in Zoology and started my postgraduate work I was working part time as a research assistant in a hospital-based neurophysiology research lab where Norm hand-made all-kinds of precision scientific and microsurgical equipment from blocks of metal, glass tubing, and other sorts of bulk materials as required. Other than technical stuff for the job, the only reading Norm ever admitted to was the Bible and Shakespeare’s complete works, because these taught him everything he wanted to know about people. Our lunch-break was the best time of the day, when Norm and I would have long rambling discussions of world affairs and the future (in a time when one could be optimistic about he future).

Many of my flights of fancy unconsciously included the words “I believe that…” as if this was a telling point in the argument. The day finally came when Norm had had enough of my fancy talk, and decided to teach me a lesson in humility.

He stopped responding to any and all of my attempts to start a conversation. After a week or so of the silent treatment, I broke down and begged for him to tell me what was so wrong. He thought a bit, and answered: “Bill, I’m fed up with your ‘beliefs’. I don’t give a damn what you believe…. It’s what you THINK that matters…. ‘He who assumes, zooms‘ [as in taking a pratfall]. Since I’m not interested in talking about baseless beliefs, whenever you used the world ‘believe’ I decided there was nothing worth discussing. However, when you start a statement with ‘I think, there is an assumption of a rational chain of reasoning based on some fact-based evidence.” This would have been around 1963-64. Since then I have worked to remove ‘I believe’ from my vocabulary, and to ensure that my statements are underpinned by rational connections with real-world evidence.

The following search strings show you the evidence that Climate Sentinel News has reported about the fact-based science: ● “Road to Hothouse Hell“, ● “Existential Risk“; and our LNP COALition Government’s responses to the evidence:

Unfortunately, Australia is presently governed by a PM from marketing who actively spruiks whatever humbug his special interest patrons appear to want.

Lesson begins

Here is a real-life televised interview between some media people and Miranda Whelehan on ITV’s Good Morning Britain (11 April 2022 | Just Stop Oil). The interview lasts 10 minutes – but displays the stark reality as to how the ‘seriously’ some commercial media take the climate emergency.

The ‘parody’ using parts of Whelehan’s interview demonstrates Hollywood’s imagination in the movie Don’t Look Up was limited in comparison to the reality of British morning TV. Too many people believe what they hear/see on TV in preference to thinking about the extent of what they hear/see is actually based on evidence of reality.

Miranda Whelehan | ITV | Good Morning Britain | 11 April 2022 | Just Stop Oil

The Parodies

‘Good Morning Britain’ Interview Gives ‘Don’t Look Up’ Vibes | The Mehdi Hasan Show

Australia today

Unfortunately, the next parody by Juice Media isn’t a parody at all. Juice is far more factual than you will hear from most COALition politicians (along with many others). The evidence underlying almost every statement has already been discussed on Climate Sentinel News; and there would be even more if I had the time and stamina to produce it.

Sorry about the profanity, though.

Unfortunately, polite English doesn’t have strong enough words words to express how many people who think rationally feel about a government that is supposed to keep Australians safe but spends billions of our dollars shoveling more coal on the fires causing global warming….

What to do about the situation

Vote Climate One is comprised of a group of volunteers who decided to pool our various resources to document the issues and the consequences of ignoring them. Our primary goal is to do what we can to replace the existing puppet government in league with the fossil fuel industry with people who have provided evidence that they will prioritize action on the climate emergency in government. Towards achieving this goal, (1) we are ranking every candidate in every Australian electorate as to the evidence we have as to their willingness to place action on the climate emergency as their first priority in parliament, and (2) establish Climate Sentinel News as a way to detail evidence that the crisis is real, and of the COALition’s malfeasance in protecting Australian citizens from the dangers of global warming.

Another Juice Media parody that isn’t a parody at all, explains how preferential voting can be used to change our government for the better.

Tells the truth about electing honest government

Juice Media describes Australian preferential voting quite effectively. It is up to Australian voters to use this process effectively to get the kind of government you want.

Vote Climate One works under the assumption that there are a lot of people who have been swayed in the past by the rhetoric and what the Juice Ladies call ‘shitfuckery’ to vote for fossil fuel puppet parties and and individuals protecting and promoting the fossil fuel industry. In the past this could be justified by their (supposed) support for economic growth and employment opportunities. However, in in the present, as our understanding of climate change grows, it is increasingly evident that the fossil fuel interests and their puppets are paving the road to mass extinction by still working to expand the burning coal, oil and gas.

We think that if they are given the facts and understanding of the differences between thinking and believing many past voters for the LNP and similar puppets will consider voting for people who have pledged to put action on the climate emergency at the tops of their agendas if elected to Parliament. Climate Sentinel News focuses on what we know about climate change and think about it. Our Traffic Light Voting System ranks every candidate in every electorate with our traffic lights and provides a form you can fill out at home before voting to ensure your preferences have the best chance of giving you the election results you want.

The bad news is that if Capt Humbug’s government remains in power, they have proved that they can be quite effective in distracting from and blocking effective action to resolve solve the climate emergency. If Humbug has its way, Australia will have done nothing effective to slow and stop our progress towards runaway global warming and what may prove to be the end of humanity in our world’s worst global mass extinction event.

The good news from the IPCC and other scientific bodies is that if we accept we are facing the crux of the crisis and unite with other nations who take the risk of extinction seriously, we still have a very few years where it is still possible to stop and reverse the warming process. However, to do this we will need the backing and support of a progressive government that puts action on climate change at the top of its Parliamentary agenda, as the candidates we have flagged with our ‘green light’ have done.

Featured Image: Scott Morrison: From the Australian, Paul Murray Live – 14/03/2022.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison says he is supportive of Australia’s fossil fuel industry – and particularly coal, which he says will be around for “decades to come”. “When it comes to the coal industry, it’s worth $35 billion to us every year in exports, and that’s money Australia needs to grow our economy,” Mr Morrison said. “What you need in today’s energy economy is you need to continue to run your coal-fired power stations for as long as you possibly can and that is our policy … we want them to run as long as they possibly can.” Coal-fired power stations will continue to run to back up renewable power sources, although Mr Morrison said gas would play a larger role in the energy mix in years to come. Mr Morrison added that building a new coal-fired power station would be difficult because of the state government planning powers, which would “probably never allow them to do it”.

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

Leaders Debate: Live view was owned by Sky News

William P. Hall on April 24, 2022

If you compare what Scotty and Albo think about climate change, you won’t find it here. Unlike Q&A, Sky didn’t find an audience concerned about the future

IN FULL: Sky News-The Courier Mail People’s Forum: Scott Morrison vs Anthony Albanese: “REAL NEWS, HONEST VIEWS”

Editors commentary

After not finding any freely available live broadcast of the Leaders Debate from the Gabba Stadium in Brisbane, someone sent me a link to the YouTube version, linked here. Comparing the questions and responses here to what transpired on ABC’s Q&A session in Gladstone is like comparing two completely different planets.

Based on questions Sky News read out, their audience was primarily interested in personal things like taxes, jobs, immigration, cost of living, pensions, health services, etc. Energy policy was mentioned perhaps twice, net-zero (with no explanation) was mentioned about once; and I don’t think issues like climate change, climate emergency, etc. were mentioned at all by questioners or the ‘leaders’. Interestingly, in over half an hour of searching with Google (which I am fairly good at using) I couldn’t find any news outlet or other organ who has published a complete transcript of the debate.

Contrast this with ABC’s live broadcast of Q&A from Gladstone, Qld:

Q&A Live from Gladstone

Note that the Youtube video from Q&A includes a complete and searchable transcript of the video, making it easy to analyze the discussion. In any event there were a good 18 minutes of discussion relating to the climate emergency and its effects on Australia.

In any event, my own thoughts on the Leaders Debate, is that if this the best on offer by the dominant parties, if you are concerned about our future in a catastrophically changing climate, bring on the independents. Labor may be better than the COALition, but if they have no intention to shut down coal mining or gas production, the difference is minor where climate action is concerned.

Featured Image: Grab from the Featured Video.

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

Since when does pay-tv own the Leaders Debate?

William P. Hall on April 20, 2022

Does Murdoch media own the Australian’s Leaders Debate?

It took a fair bit of searching to find a explicit statement for what I suspected. Murdoch’s media somehow ended up owning the content of our first Leaders Debase in the 2022 National Election:

ABC News’s ‘analysis’ of the first Leaders’ Debate. No live feed was available free to the air in any of Australia’s capitol cities. It was only available on Murdoch’s pay to view Sky News cable and satellite broadcasters

by Rayane Tamer, 20/04/2022 at 5:03pm, updated 3 hours ago at 6:43pm SBS News

Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese will face off in a leaders’ debate tonight. Here’s what you need to know: In an Australian-first, SBS will live stream the debate in both Arabic and Mandarin [but NOT in English!].

The debate is not on free-to-air in the major cities, so you can only watch the broadcast event live in English on Sky News.

SBS will be live-streaming the debate, translated into both Arabic and Mandarin to ensure two of the largest language groups will be able to watch along as both political leaders are grilled on their contested policies.

“By offering the leaders’ debate in Arabic and Mandarin, we hope to ultimately drive an understanding of the key issues, and enable informed participation in this election,” SBS Director of Audio and Language Content David Hua said.

You can tune in with the live translations on SBS On Demand.

To me this is close to unbelievable, that somehow the two major political parties would allow Rupert Murdoch’s media empire take ownership of information in the candidates’ own words that should be readily available to all Australian voters. As the situation stands tonight, the more than 17 million Australians living in our capital cities can easily access the debates ONLY through Murdoch’s media or if they understand Mandarin or Arabic.

There is good reason to believe that Scotty from Marketing and many of his COALition henchmen/women are Murdoch Puppets, but I am surprised the Albanese would go along with this kind of arrangement.

Yet another reason to give your first preferences to green independents, or the Greens. @Vote Climate One’s Climate Sentinel News will give you many more reasons for putting the COALition and their friends last, and not putting Labor first on your ballot, and our Traffic Light Voting System for every Australian electorate shows you how you can use your preferences most effectively to support green independents and Greens who are publicly committed to put action on climate change at the top of their Parliamentary agendas.

Featured Image: Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Labor leader Anthony Albanese will go head-to-head in the election campaign’s first leaders’ debate. Source: From the featured article in SBS News.

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

True grimness of IPCC’s report still misunderstood

Climate News Links on April 18, 2022

Most media concluded that emissions could go on rising until 2025 and the world could still stay under 1.5C. A potentially lethal error.

photo by Mario Tama / from the article

by Matt McGrath, 16/03/2022 in BBC News

Climate change: Key UN finding widely misinterpreted: A key finding in the latest IPCC climate report has been widely misinterpreted, according to scientists involved in the study:

A major challenge in communicating complex messages about climate change is that the more simplified media reports of these events often have more influence than the science itself.

This worries observers who argue that giving countries the impression that emissions can continue to grow until 2025 would be a disaster for the world.

“We definitely don’t have the luxury of letting emissions grow for yet another three years,” said Kaisa Kosonen from Greenpeace.

“We have eight years to nearly halve global emissions. That’s an enormous task, but still doable, as the IPCC has just reminded us – but if people now start chasing emissions peak by 2025 as some kind of benchmark, we don’t have a chance.”

Read the complete article….

Editor’s note: Based on my rigorous evaluation of the IPCC’s scientific methodology and writing processes, even the corrected understanding of the IPCC report STILL UNDERSTATES the likelihood of the risk from, and the magnitude of consequences of failures or even delays in stopping the progress of global warming. In reality, the report says it is already too late to avoid global average temperatures rising more than 1.5 °C. By reaching net zero in 2030 AND extracting and sequestering most of the excess CO₂ already in the atmosphere we might be able to bring temperatures back down to 1.5 °C or less. Continuing with business as usual keeps us on the road to runaway warming to Earth’s Hothouse Hell and social collapse leading towards global mass extinction of humans and most other large and complex organisms on the planet.

Featured Image: A dried out reservoir in Chile where drought has forced the government to take emergency measures. / Getty Images / from the article.

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

Tells the truth about electing honest government

Climate News Links on April 16, 2022

Excuse the profanity, but Juice Media perfectly describes how Vote Climate One is trying to use preferential voting to get honest government.

Featured Image: Preferential voting in the House of Representatives. / Parliamentary Education Office licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

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

Direct Air Capture of CO₂ at PPM levels is a folly

William P. Hall on April 15, 2022

The physical laws of thermodynamics rule that it takes a lot of energy to capture wide-spread rare gas molecules into a tight space

The article below extrapolates the costs of ‘proven’ technologies for direct air capture and sequestration of CO₂. To have any hope of cleansing our planet’s atmosphere, MILLIONS of these complex engineered contraptions would have to be manufactured, transported, and installed around the world. Of course, the fossil fuel industry would love to take on the task of doing this because of the trillions of dollars to be made from building the devices and producing the vast amounts of fuel required to make them work to reduce the entropy of the gas molecules emitted from driving the machines capturing the gas.

Plants already do this work using solar energy. They too are inefficient, but they use the small fraction of the solar energy captured that passes through their cells to grow more and ever more plants until space and/or their simple nutrients are used up. Nevertheless, they are self-reproducing and grow exponentially as long as they can, capturing CO₂ to make the sugars they use for fuel and building blocks for their structures. As long as the carbon remains captured in living or dead plant matter it is well concentrated and easily sequestered.

With appropriate changes farming and forestry techniques a lot of carbon can be captured and sequestered; but potentially much more can be done by fertilizing AND FARMING the nearly sterile areas of ocean over abyssal depths These comprise approximately 1/5 of the Earth’s total unfrozen surface. The US National Academies of Science, Engineering, Medicine (2021) A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration — especially Chapter 3, Nutrient Fertilization provides an excellent review.

The Featured Image above, based on satellite tracking of the amount of chlorophyll-a in the oceans shows ocean deserts (i.e., areas where there is virtually no chlorophyll – and thus no photosynthesis) as dark blue or purple. Even some of the lighter blue areas might also be made more productive with fertilization.

The National Academies report considers mainly the first part of the process – fertilization mainly by providing iron in micronutrient quantities. This is often all that is required to enable large blooms of microalgae, but the blooms also can cause problems, and the individual algal cells aren’t large enough to sink the carbon they capture out of the zone where decomposition soon releases the carbon back to the atmosphere.

What is missing in the National Academies report is the need for active seeding and farming of appropriate ecosystems of consumers to eat and package the microalgal carbon content into fecal pellets and dead bodies dense enough to sink into the abyssal depths where the carbon will be incorporated into the bottom sediment. However, unlike mechanical contrivances that have to be manufactured, once the appropriate mix of ‘seeds’ is worked out, the suite of consumer organisms will also with some appropriate tweaking by the farmers, self-reproduce and grow exponentially to meet the demand,

Yes, it is quite likely there will be eggs broken and catastrophic major failures (easily stopped by stopping the algal fertilization with iron), but if we don’t have other proven means of sequestration, the price of not trying this reasonably quick and thermodynamically plausible solution could well be the completion of global mass extinction and the end of the human species.

Direct Air Capture installation / from the article

by Leigh Collins, 14/09/2021 in Recharge

‘The amount of energy required by direct air carbon capture proves it is an exercise in futility’

Removing CO2 directly from the air requires almost as many joules as those produced by burning the fossil fuel in the first place, writes Leigh Collins

Capturing CO2 emissions using direct-air-capture (DAC) technology requires almost as much energy as that contained in the fossil fuels that produced the carbon dioxide in the first place, according to new analysis.

In 2020, the world used 462 exajoules (EJ) of energy from fossil fuels, which resulted in 32 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions. Capturing that carbon dioxide through DAC — which sucks the greenhouse gas out of the air — would require 448EJ, according to calculations by Australian maths-as-a-service company Keynumbers.

Read the complete article….

Australia needs a government formed of people who understand and accept the reality of the physical world, not one formed of fossil fuel puppets led by Scotty from Marketing (a.k.a. Capt. Humbug).

Working WITH our multi-billionaires

Scotty from marketing and his fellow puppets work assiduously to protect fossil fuel multibillionaires (not all of them are even Australian – e.g., Adani) and make them even richer. And then there was Clive Palmer last week

Green’s Adam Bandt’s National Press Club address this week proposes taxing Australia’s billionaires to support otherwise unprofitable community services.

However, I think Australia has at least one multi-billionaire who is already doing a lot to develop ‘green’ industries to minimize carbon emissions. Dr Andrew Forrest (i.e., ‘Twiggy’), Australia’s second richest person last time I looked, may have stepped on more than a few toes building his industrial empire, but I am unaware of any other person who parked his industries and iron mines in a charitable foundation and spent several years EARNING a doctorate in marine sciences and establishing a substantial marine sciences lab, aside from pledging upwards of a billion dollars to establish zero emissions mining and manufacturing systems.

Hopefully we can elect the kind of people to our Parliament who have the foresight, understanding and integrity to persuade and work with people like Forrest who seems inclined to invest significant fractions of their private resources in the fight against likely runaway global warming. Unfortunately, several narcissistic and hedonistic multibillionaire fossil fuel special interests are doing a very effective job persuading their current Parliamentary puppets to spend public resources shoveling more carbon fuel onto the fires of global warming.

In his own words, Scotty makes it blindingly obvious that he is vastly more interested in stoking his patrons’ fossil fuel fires than in stopping their emissions to mitigate global warming and the possible mass extinctions of humans and the millions of other species of life we share our planet with.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison says he is supportive of Australia’s fossil fuel industry – and particularly coal, which he… says will be around for “decades to come”. “When it comes to the coal industry, it’s worth $35 billion to us every year in exports, and that’s money Australia needs to grow our economy,” Mr Morrison said. “What you need in today’s energy economy is you need to continue to run your coal-fired power stations for as long as you possibly can and that is our policy … we want them to run as long as they possibly can.” Coal-fired power stations will continue to run to back up renewable power sources, although Mr Morrison said gas would play a larger role in the energy mix in years to come. Mr Morrison added that building a new coal-fired power station would be difficult because of the state government planning powers, which would “probably never allow them to do it”. For the video see: The Australian, 14/03/2022, Commentary/coal-will-be-around-for-decades-to-come-scott-morrison/video. See also ‘We will keep mining’, says Australian prime minister Scott Morrison about the future of coal.

If that wasn’t enough, here’s a choice of some more of Scotty’s thinking about stopping the Apocalypse of global warming

Don’t be afraid, don’t be scared, it won’t hurt you. It’s coal
15/02/17 via the Guardian
We’ll keep mining!
09/09/2021 via the Guardian
We need to get the gas from under our feet. We’ve got to get the gas!
The future of power: What’s behind Australia’s push for gas-fired energy | ABC Four Corners

We need to turn away from the the Apocalypse on the road to hothouse hell, and we won’t do this by continuing with business as usual!

It seems to have taken the clear thinking of Greta Thunberg, a 16 year-old girl who concluded school was pointless as long as humans continued their blind ‘business as usual’ rush towards extinction.

greta-act-as-if-the-house-was-on-fire
Listen to Greta’s speech live at the World Economic forum in Davos 2019. Except for her reliance on the IPCC’s overoptimistic emissions budget, everything she says is spot on that even she, as a child, can understand the alternatives and what has to happen.

In other words, wake up! smell the smoke! see the grimly frightful reality, and fight the fire that is burning up our only planet so we can give our offspring a hopeful future. This is the only issue that matters. Even the IPCC’s hyperconservative Sixth Assessment Report that looks at climate change’s global and regional impacts on ecosystems, biodiversity, and human communities makes it clear we are headed for an existential climate catastrophe if we don’t stop the warming process.

Scott Morrison and his troop of wooden-headed puppets are doing essentially nothing to organize effective action against the warming. In fact all they doing is rearranging the furniture in the burning house to be incinerated along with anything and everyone we may care about.

In Greta’s words, “even a small child can understand [this]”. People hope for their children’s futures. She doesn’t want your hopium. She wants you to rationally panic enough to wake up, pay attention to reality, and fight the fire…. so our offspring can have some hope for their future. Vote Climate One’s Traffic Light Voting System will help you use your preferential votes wisely on behalf of our offsprings’ future.

Let’s hope that we can stop global warming soon enough to leave them with a future where they can survive and flourish.

Featured Image:  still frame from a NASA MODIS video of the changing distribution of chlorophyll in Earth’s oceans, showing where photosynthetic carbon fixation is occurring. Most is in near-shore areas of comparatively shallow waters where the fixed carbon is fairly rapidly consumed and cycled back into the atmosphere by the aerobic metabolism of microorganisms, animals and plants. The dark blue to lavender areas are the ocean deserts above abyssal depths where little or no photosynthesis can occur due to the lack of even a few iron and/or magnesium atoms required as micro-nutrients for the formation of a few critical enzymes in the photosynthetic pathway. / via William Hall.

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

For IPCC views, read Tech Sum not Policy Sum

Climate News Links on April 13, 2022

IPCC Reports are highly political processes. The Summary for Policy Makers reflects govt. views. The scientists write the Technical Summary.

Getty image / From the article

by Amy Westervelt – 12/04/2022 in Drilled

The Technical Summary kinda slaps (IPCC Mitigation Report, Part 2): Forget the Summary for Policymakers, the Technical Summary Is Where It’s At

If I could give other journalists covering this report just one piece of advice, it would be this. The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) goes through a tedious approval process during which representatives from 195 governments (some of them very dependent on our continued dependence on fossil fuels, cough cough the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, I’m looking at you). The Technical Summary, on the other hand, comes straight from the authors and is generally released at the same time as the SPM. As Max Boykoff, a contributing author to Ch 13 (on policy) put it: “The technical summary is the one that’s prepared by authors of the report. So it does go through a review process by governments and experts, but ultimately the authors have a say there.” Whereas with the SPM, while authors can reject input that would make the summary inaccurate, that seems to be the most they can do to maintain the integrity of that document; preventing it from becoming a mealy-mouthed political document on the other hand, not so much.

Read the complete article….

Featured image: IPCC’s review process for formal reports. / Original source: IPCC’s Preparing Reports. Via Hall (02/2022) Some fundamental issues relating to the science underlying climate policy: The IPCC and COP26 couldn’t help but get it wrong.

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

As bad as it is, IPCC Report likely understates reality

Climate News Links on April 10, 2022

Saudi Arabia, India, China, (Australia) and a few other countries have sought to make changes that would weaken the final warnings.

Students protest in Toulouse, France, on 25 March, about government inaction on climate change. Photograph: Alain Pitton/NurPhoto/REX/Shutterstock / from the article.

by Fiona Harvey, 02/24/2022 in The Guardian

Dire warning on climate change ‘is being ignored’ amid war and economic turmoil: The third segment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is being overshadowed, just like the previous one

…

Saudi Arabia, India, China and a few other countries have sought to make changes that would weaken the final warnings, the Observer understands. Some governments are anxious to avoid policy advice such as cutting subsidies to fossil fuels, even though these are widely espoused by leading authorities.This process of refinement – which has also been a complaint in the previous chapters of the IPCC assessment – is defended by some, as producing a document that all governments must “own”, as they have all had input. But many scientists are growing increasingly f

rustrated, as it produces a conservative and sometimes watered down document that many feel does not reflect the urgency and shocking nature of the threat.

Read the complete article….

Featured image: An earlier report streamed to a press conference at the Swiss Academy of Sciences in Bern last August. Photograph: Alessandro Della Valle/EPA / from the article.

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

IPCC: Summary of importance of 3 part AR6 Report

Climate News Links on April 10, 2022

Following up on my comprehensive post, The Guardian succinctly explains why the 3 parts of the complete AR6 need to be considered by everyone.

The latest report said that temperatures could rise by as much as 3C, a catastrophic level. Photograph: Mario Hoppmann/AFP/Getty Images / From the article

by Fiona Harvey, 05/04/2022 in the Guardian

Why are the three IPCC working group reports significant? Explainer: The IPCC has now published all parts of its landmark review of climate science.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of the world’s leading climate scientists, has now published all three sections of its landmark comprehensive review of climate science.

…

Yet the picture could already be even worse than the IPCC has presented. The IPCC data took in research papers published from 2014 up to last year, but since then the world has experienced even more extreme weather. The IPCC reports are regarded as cautious and conservative by many scientists, and the summary for policymakers that sets out the key messages of each working group are subject to inputs from governments that some regard as watering down.

Read the complete article….

Featured Image: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) – complete. From the IPCC Web site.

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

Implications for Australia in latest IPCC report

Climate News Links on April 10, 2022

The IPCC has warned that if we don’t stop and reverse global warming now it will soon be too late to avoid climate catastrophe and suffering.


The IPCC makes it clear that promotion of coal and gas – a favourite pastime of Australian politicians – is making it harder to keep global heating to 1.5C. Photograph: Saeed Khan/AFP/Getty Images / from the article

By Adam Morton and Graham Readfearn, 09/04/2022 in The Guardian

Latest IPCC report offers key lessons for Australia but is anyone listening? The climate authority has warned it is now or never to cut emissions but will MPs on the campaign trail heed its warning?

Perhaps the message was too familiar. With the unofficial election campaign under way, and the prime minister mired in escalating allegations of bullying and duplicity, a major report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the world’s most respected climate science body – quickly disappeared from the Australian news cycle this week.

…

Headlines told part of the story: it was “now or never” if the world was to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. The report suggests that threshold is already practically out of reach without using technology to suck carbon dioxide from the sky. Keeping heating below 2C, which would trigger damage several magnitudes worse than 1.5C, will require an “abrupt acceleration” of effort after 2030.

Read the complete article….

Featured Image: Scenarios in a mathematical model by en:Adam Frank et al., 2018, which describes climate change due to GHG emissions by an advanced energy-intensive civilization.[1] From left to right, top to bottom: Die-off: The world population reaches a peak and subsequently declines slowly until an equilibrium is attained. Population can decline by up to 90% after peaking; according to Frank, such a civilization “might well just descend into chaos.” Sustainability: Both the world population and average surface temperature rise and then level off. This scenario shows that civilizations can be stable in the long term. Collapse without resource change: A civilization makes no attempt to switch to less GHG-intensive energy and collapses due to runaway climate change, possibly going extinct. Collapse with resource change: A civilization transitions to less GHG-neutral energy, but collapses anyway due to triggering a tipping point in the climate system. / 3-01-2021 by LaundryPizza03 – Own work; adapted from a figure in Billings, 2018. / via Wikimedia Commons.

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