Climate change science: now and what’s the future

Benalla Sustainable Future Group, invite you to attend a public presentation at BPACC on Thursday 19th March, 6.45pm for a 7pm start, on the subject of Climate Science – what the current data is telling us, and what the trends are predicting for the future.

Our guest speakers are Dr Leanne Webb from the CSIRO Climate Research Institute in Aspendale, and Dr Lynette Bettio from the Bureau of Meteorology in Melbourne.

Read the report from the Benalla Sustainable Future Group - “Climate change science: now and what’s the future.”

The government is in authoritarian mode and now is not the time for complacency

Deputy prime minister Michael McCormack’s attack on “raving inner-city lunatics” who believe in climate science may just seem a bit unhinged but it is part of a broader government strategy to quell political dissent that is hiding in full sight.

Australian PM Scott Morrison (left) and deputy PM
Michael McCormack. ‘As we watch the US
and Europe fall under the spell of democratically
 elected autocrats we need to confront the fact
that there is more than a passing chance we
are now on the same journey ourselves.’

As fires burn across eastern Australia, the government is in textbook authoritarian mode, deliberately inflaming division and manufacturing outrage towards its critics in an attempt to divert from its own manifest failure to protect the regions.

It’s ugly civics, but far more insidious than the rhetoric is a raft of laws and regulations that have the prospect to fundamentally recast Australia’s democracy.

Read the opinion piece by Peter Lewis from The Guardian - “The government is in authoritarian mode and now is not the time for complacency”.

The Oceans Are Warming Fast, and Our Lives Are About to Change

Climate deniers want you to believe otherwise, but the basic physics of climate science is as solid as the basic physics of gravity (or maybe even more solid, since the graviton, the elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity, still has not been detected). But there are plenty of unknowns in Earth’s climate system, such as exactly how much each ton of carbon dioxide we emit warms the atmosphere, or how different clouds can cool (by reflecting away sunlight) and warm (by trapping heat) the Earth. These uncertainties don’t mean that scientists don’t understand how burning fossil fuels cooks the planet. But it does mean there are still scientific nuances that could make the risks we face from climate change lower than scientists now anticipate – or higher.

Sea ice melts on the Franklin Strait along the
Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

Last week, an important uncertainty was resolved – and, like most news about climate change these days, it’s not a happy story. A paper published in the journal Science shows that the Earth’s oceans are warming at a rate that’s about 40 percent faster than indicated in the 2013 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Because the world’s oceans work like a giant flywheel, capturing heat energy and then spinning it out over time, warmer oceans have huge implications for everything from the rate of sea-level rise to hurricane intensity for generations to come.

Read the story from Rolling Stone magazine by Jeff Goodell - “The Oceans Are Warming Fast, and Our Lives Are About to Change.”

Is corporate Australia facing a 'tipping point' on climate change?

In the parlance of climate science, a "tipping point" is a dire prospect – a critical threshold breach that triggers an abrupt and rapid change in climate.

Meeting the 1.5C climate change target will require
significant ambition and innovation across
sectors, says Colonial First State Global Asset
 Management.CREDIT:

But last week, Australia's second-biggest asset manager used the phrase in a more optimistic sense – to describe a shift in how investors, regulators and companies are thinking about the varied risks that climate change poses, and what they should actually do about it.

Read the story from The Age by Ruth Williams - “Is corporate Australia facing a 'tipping point' on climate change?”

Angus Taylor signals further taxpayer investment in existing coal and gas

The new energy minister, Angus Taylor, says he’s not a sceptic about climate science, just the economics of green schemes, and he’s declared renewables are “in my blood” and have an important role in the energy system.

 'I am not sceptical about climate science': Angus Taylor.

But while overtly backing solar and hydro, but not wind – a technology he’s long opposed – Taylor has also signalled he wants to encourage new investment extending the life of existing coal and gas plants, and upgrading ageing facilities, with an objective of boosting supply.

In his first major speech in his new portfolio, Taylor has recommitted the government to pursuing heavy-handed interventions in the energy market cooked up in the last days of the Turnbull government, including “last resort” divestiture powers to break up power companies if they engage in price gouging.

Read the story from The Guardian by Katharine Murphy - “Angus Taylor signals further taxpayer investment in existing coal and gas.”

In court, Big Oil rejected climate denial

In a California court case this week, Judge William Alsup asked the two sides to provide him a climate science tutorial.

A combination of file photos shows the logos of five of the
 largest publicly traded oil companies - BP, Chevron,
ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and Total. 

The plaintiffs are the coastal cities of San Francisco and Oakland. They’re suing five major oil companies (Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips and BP) to pay for the cities’ costs to cope with the sea level rise caused by global warming. Chevron’s lawyer presented the science for the defense, and most notably, began by explicitly accepting the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, saying:

‘From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change’

Read Dana Nuccitelli’s story from The Guardian - “In court, Big Oil rejected climate denial.”

Trump EPA Sued Over Refusal to Release Heartland Institute Communications.

Two environmental groups filed suit Thursday to force the Environmental Protection Agency to disclose its correspondence with the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that has led a years-long campaign to discredit climate science.

The lawsuit suggests that contact between the EPA
under Scott Pruitt and the Heartland Institute is more
extensive than previously known.

The complaint by the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) suggests that contact between the EPA and Heartland has been far more extensive than previously known. An EPA Freedom of Information Act official told EDF last year that an agency search had yielded "between 200 to 600 records" of such correspondence, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Virginia.

"EPA's efforts to promote climate change deniers and undermine peer-reviewed science behind closed doors is not only a failure of its mission, it is illegal," said Kym Hunter, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center. "The public has a clear and protected right to know what the EPA is doing and with whom they are communicating, including those pushing a climate-denier agenda.”

Read the Inside Climate News story - “Trump EPA Sued Over Refusal to Release Heartland Institute Communications.”

'Beneath the Wistertians' gather for the first time this year on Saturday

“Beneath the Wisterians” gather again on Saturday, January 27, for the first time this year.

We will meet at the northern end of Shepparton’s Maude St Mall at 11:00: it’s free, all are welcome and although some public seating exists, those attending are advised to bring a folding chair.

And what will we discuss? Well, the year that was and the year ahead.

The aim has always been to ensure Beneath the Wisteria was politically neutral, but that has become rather difficult as our political classes have made it so, encouraged all along by those who dispute climate science.

Sadly, few of those who gather in Canberra, or Melbourne’s Spring St, or even in the chambers at Shepparton’s Welsford St, appear to take climate change seriously other than to make the occasional proclamation, which is little more than a fiction designed to appease those vaguely aware of climate change and convinced that we need to do something, and declarations by the PM to save the Great Barrier Reef is often enough, although everyone who really understands what is really happening sees what is planned as abject failure, and little more than a distraction.

Please join me on Saturday as despondency can only be repaired by optimistic friends.

The predicted temperature on Saturday is 39 degrees, but as the maximum usually arrives about mid-afternoon, I’m expecting about 37 degrees at 11:00 am. 

We meet in the middle of winter, let’s meet in the middle of summer.

Any questions call me, Robert McLean, at 0400 502 199.

The Problem With the Climate Movement? Too Much Science

Next month, EPA chief and coal-industry darling Scott Pruitt will likely kick off a ‘Red Team, Blue Team’ “debate” on climate science. The purpose, according to Pruitt, is to establish an “objective, transparent, public review of questions and answers around the issues around carbon dioxide,” wherein a ‘red team’ of conservative pundits tries to poke holes in decades of climate research. In reality, this isn’t science. It’s theater, a one-act play put on for coal-mining executives and conservative think tanks.

Bill Nye - too much science.

The fact that scientists overwhelmingly agree humans are causing a rapid and dangerous rise in temperature should come as little comfort to advocates. Pruitt shows that for many Americans, science isn’t the strength of the climate movement. It’s the Achilles heel, and fossil fuel firms have been hacking away at it for decades.

Read the Nexus Media story by Jeremy Deaton - “The Problem With the Climate Movement? Too Much Science.”

Revealing the Methods of Climate-Doubting Blogs

Thousands of scientific papers about climate change are published in journals each year. Far fewer discuss how skepticism toward mainstream climate science spreads.

A group of scientists has now plunged into one of the habitats where so-called climate change skeptics have prospered -- the blogosphere. They found that climate science-doubting blogs cite a small cast of alternative “experts” rather than those with views aligning with the scientific consensus, and seek to undermine all of climate science by casting doubt around limited, hot-button issues.

Nearly all climate scientists agree that Earth’s climate is rapidly warming, that humans are causing it and that if nothing is done, climate change could have catastrophic consequences in the coming decades.

A lively countercurrent of thought exists, however, on internet blogs. Many blogs question how much Earth is warming, how much humans are causing it and whether the warming warrants a major societal response. These blogs are read by millions of people each month, and are often cited by conventional media outlets and by policymakers. So persuasive have climate doubters been that between a third and a half of Americans believe the globe is not warming, or that it is but humans are not the primary cause, according to recent surveys.

Read the Inside Science story - “Revealing the Methods of Climate-Doubting Blogs.”

Exxon accused by Harvard researchers of misleading public on climate change

Two Harvard University researchers say they have collected data proving Exxon Mobil Corp made "explicit factual misrepresentations" in newspaper ads it purchased to convey its views on the oil industry and climate science.

Exxon Mobil Corp knew more than it publicly
 admitted about climate change, according to a study.

In an article in the journal Environmental Research Letters, researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes said they examined 187 documents, including internal memos, peer-reviewed papers by Exxon scientists and "advertorials" that ran in The New York Times — paid advertisements in the style of opinion pieces.

The researchers said they used a social science analysis method to turn statements in the documents into data points that could be counted and compared to each other.

Read ABC News story - “Exxon accused by Harvard researchers of misleading public on climate change.”

Bozeman monthly luncheon group airs differences on climate

The letters to the editor in Montana’s Bozeman Daily Chronicle are probably similar to those in other small-town newspapers. People worry about the growth of the town, complain about dog poop, and debate the politics du jour.

This past January, when Quresh Latif wrote a letter defending climate science, the online comments devolved into the usual tit-for-tat vitriol. But unlike the relative anonymity of social media commenters, these came from his neighbors. Dismayed by the unproductive toxicity, Latif sought a better way to exchange ideas.

“I have pretty strong emotions on this topic,” says Latif, an ecologist and father of two young girls. “I have difficulty meeting my own ideals when talking to skeptics of mainstream science.” Like many other Americans, Latif is troubled by our society’s deepening polarization. “After Trump got elected, I felt like I needed to make a concerted effort to practice conversation with people who are outside my bubble.”

Read Karen Kirk’s story on Yale Climate Connections - “Bozeman monthly luncheon group airs differences on climate.”

There’s no science behind denying climate change

“Whether humans are responsible for the bulk of climate change is going to be left to the scientists, but it’s all of our responsibility to leave this planet in better shape for the future generations than we found it.” -Mike Huckabee

Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
over the past few hundred thousand years.

If you didn’t know anything about climate science, about the Earth’s temperature, about carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases, but you wanted to, how would you go about doing it? You’d begin by constructing a plan for how you’d accurately scientifically investigate the problem. You’d think about the data you’d need to collect and how you’d gather it. You’d think about the measurements you’d want to make and how to make them. You’d think about the sources of error and how to account for them: how to properly calibrate your data from all over the world and from many different time periods. And then you’d bring it together, under one enormous framework, to try and draw a scientifically robust conclusion.

Your first step would be to go out and try to measure the heat content of the planet. You’d measure the temperature of the air where you are, and you’d attempt to do it all over the world. The continents would be the easiest, and then you’d go after the oceans. The sea-level temperature would be low-hanging fruit, and then you’d have to go beyond the obvious to measure the heat trapped in the upper atmosphere and in the deeper waters of the seas. You’d try and measure it everywhere today, but also to reconstruct what it was in the past, going as far back as you can.

Read Ethan Siegal’s story - “There’s no science behind denying climate change.”

Funding & direction of Australian climate science research needs an overhaul: Academy of Science

Fran Kelly.

Australian climate science research is not currently providing the answers that farmers, local councils and all levels of government need to make decisions on future climate variability and risk.

That's one of the key findings of a climate science capability review, released this morning by the Australia Academy of Science.

The review was set up after the controversial cuts to climate science programs at the CSIRO last year.

The independent review recommends 80 new research positions should be funded, together with an overhaul of the administration and oversight of Australia's climate science programs.

Listen to the discussion on RN Breakfast with Fran Kelly - “Funding & direction of Australian climate science research needs an overhaul: Academy of Science.”

Al Franken’s devastating strategy for taking on Trump’s team of climate science deniers

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) has emerged as one of Congress’ most devastating questioners of the myriad climate science deniers who fill President Donald Trump’s cabinet.

Senator Al Franken tackles
climate science deniers.

And it’s largely because the comedian turned Senator combines two abilities rarely seen together — actual knowledge of climate science and genuine communications chops. Franken knows how to tell a good story, and as the best science communicators will tell you, the best messaging requires storytelling.

Just last week Franken dismantled Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in one hearing, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry in another. And by dismantled, I mean his doggedness drove Zinke to spout nonsense answers that a top climatologist called “stupid and ignorant,” while it drove Perry to simply lose his cool — a take-down that has since gone viral.

Read Joe Romm’s story on Think Progress - “Al Franken’s devastating strategy for taking on Trump’s team of climate science deniers.”

Scientists Getting Filthy Rich On Climate Change? Here Are The Facts

When people attempt to debunk climate science, they come up with some pretty fanciful theories.

For example, people try to downplay the rapid rate of warming in the industrial era by saying "the climate's changed before", even though countless sources show that no, not this quickly it hasn't. Not even close.

But there's one line about climate science which almost defies belief. It's the idea -- often circulated by people working for billion-dollar fossil fuel companies -- that climate scientists are in it for the money.

In a moment, we'll give you three specific cases which provide fantastic examples of why this argument is a furphy. But first, a little background.

Read the Huffington Post story - “Scientists Getting Filthy Rich On Climate Change? Here Are The Facts.”

Horrible time': CSIRO climate science proves its worth one year after deep cuts

Climate science at the CSIRO is bouncing back one year after executives modelled its demise, securing new revenue streams in the Pacific and China, and looking to hire new staff.

On February 4 last year, chief executive Larry Marshall shocked staff in the country's premier research body by stating that because the question of whether the climate was changing "has been answered", it was time to deploy resources elsewhere.

Read Peter Hannam’s story in the Melbourne Age - "’Horrible time': CSIRO climate science proves its worth one year after deep cuts.”

Court ruling provides new way for climate scientists to fight intimidation

In a legal first, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that a climate science researcher can proceed with defamation claims against writers who made false allegations about his scientific work.

Penn State University climate
change scientist Michael Mann.

The ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, found that a "reasonable jury" could find that two writers defamed Michael Mann — known for the famous "hockey stick" graph showing that modern climate change is unprecedented in human history — by making false claims about his work, and comparing him to a notorious child molester.

Read Andrew Freeman’s story in Mashable - “Court ruling provides new way for climate scientists to fight intimidation.”

Directors and Climate Change – Time for Leadership

‘Without rapid carbon emission reductions far greater than Paris commitments, the planet will become ungovernable’

Company boards need to seriously consider the
impact and complications of climate change. 

Any balanced assessment of the climate science and evidence accepts that climate change is driven primarily by human carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion, agriculture and land clearing, superimposed on natural climate variability, and that it is happening faster and more extensively than previously anticipated.

In this context, scientists have long been concerned about the extreme "tipping point" risks of the climate system; non-linear positive feedbacks which trigger rapid, irreversible and catastrophic change.

These feedbacks are now kicking in. For example, Arctic weather conditions are becoming increasingly unstable as jetstream fluctuations warm the region 20°C or more above normal levels; sea ice is at an all-time low with increasing evidence of methane emissions from melting permafrost. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting at worst-case rates, with the potential for several metre sea level rise this century. The Antarctic Larsen ice sheet and Pine Island glacier are showing signs of major breakup as a result of warming Southern Ocean waters, a process which is probably now irreversible. Coral reefs around the world, not least the Great Barrier Reef, are dying off as a result of record high sea temperatures. Major terrestrial carbon sinks are showing signs of becoming carbon emitters. And much more.

Read the Australian Institute of Company Directors story - “Directors and Climate Change – Time for Leadership.”

Whose word should you respect in any debate on science

One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts
 - he rejects arguments favouring
climate change.

The motto of the Royal Society, Britain’s and perhaps the world’s oldest scientific society, is “nullius in verba” which it says translates as “take nobody’s word for it”.

This is a rejection of the idea that truth can be sought through authority. It is a call to turn to experimentation and direct engagement with the physical world to discover truth. A noble sentiment indeed.

It’s also one of the key arguments used by deniers of climate science in attempts to refute both that the world is warming and that this warming is a result of human activity (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

This is a common approach, exemplified by Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts in his many interviews on the subject.

Read the piece on The Conversation by a lecturer in Critical Thinking at The University of Queensland, Peter Ellerton  - “Whose word should you respect in any debate on science.”