Balance (Climate and Environment Coverage)

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Tropical fire activity closely follows the co-occurrence of multiple climate stressors. Yet, it remains challenging to quantify how changes in climate alter the likelihood of fire risks associated with compound events. Recent abrupt changes in fire regimes in iconic landscapes in Brazil (namely the Pantanal and Xingu) provide a key opportunity to evaluate how extremely dry and hot conditions, both together and individually, have influenced the probability of large fires. Here we quantify the relationships between climate and fire across these regions and provide evidence on the extent to which fire risk and the associated impacts could be constrained if anthropogenic global warming is limited. We investigate the burned area, differentiating between fire types according to land use (forest fires, savanna fires, farming fires and grassland and wetland fires), and derive present and future fire risks linked to multiple climate variables. We show that concurrent air dryness (high vapour-pressure deficit (VPD)) and low precipitation have driven fire occurrence in both Xingu and the Pantanal, with VPD playing a dominant role. Historical climatic change has already increased compound event-related (CE-related) fire risks of all fire types (5%–10%), and these risks are likely to increase in the future due to global warming. The likelihood of CE-related increase in fire risk may be reduced by up to 14.4% if global warming is constrained to +1.5 °C instead of +3 °C. Nevertheless, substantially increased CE-related fire risks are still expected even if restricting global mean warming to 1.5 °C, particularly in the Pantanal. We thus conclude that climate action should be coordinated with environmental protection to reduce ignition sources and promote effective conservation measures to preserve these biomes.

The climate science community and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have misinformed world governments by failing to acknowledge tropospheric particulate geoengineering that has been ongoing with ever-increasing duration and intensity for decades, and by treating global warming solely as a radiation-balance issue, which has resulted in a seriously incomplete understanding of the fundamental factors that affect Earth’s surface temperature. Here we review the consequences of tropospheric particulate heating by absorption of short- and long-wave solar radiation and long-wave radiation from Earth’s surface. Generally, black carbon absorbs light over the entire solar spectrum; brown carbon absorbs near-UV wavelengths and, to a lesser extent, visible light; iron oxides are good absorbers, the most efficient being magnetite. Pyrogenic coal fly ash, both from coal burning and from tropospheric jet-spraying geoengineering (for military purposes and/or climate engineering), contains carbon and iron oxides, hematite and magnetite. The recently published climate-science paradigm shift discloses that the main cause of global warming is not carbon dioxide heat retention, but particulate pollution that absorbs radiation, heats the troposphere, and reduces the efficiency of atmospheric-convective heat removal from Earth’s surface. In addition to the World War II data, three other independent lines of supporting evidence are reviewed: (1) Passage overhead of the Mt. St. Helens volcanic plume; (2) Radiosonde and aethalometer investigations of Talukdar et al.; and, (3) convection suppression over the tropical North Atlantic caused by the Saharan-blown dust. The risks associated with the placement of aerosol particulates into the stratosphere, whether lofted naturally, inadvertently, or deliberately as proposed for solar radiation management, poses grave risks, including the destruction of atmospheric ozone. To solve global warming humanity must: (1) Abruptly halt tropospheric particulate geoengineering; (2) Trap particulate emissions from coal-fired industrial furnaces (especially in India and China) and from vehicle exhaust; and, (3) Reduce particulate-forming fuel additives.

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of

The project had two main components. The first concerns estimating the climate sensitivity in the presence of forcing uncertainty and natural variability. Climate sensitivity is the increase in the average surface temperature for a given increase in greenhouse gases, for example a doubling of carbon dioxide. We have provided new, probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity using a simple climate model an the observed warming in the 20th century, in conjunction with ideas in data assimilation and parameter estimation developed in the engineering community. The estimates combine the uncertainty in the anthropogenic aerosols with the uncertainty arising because of natural variability. The second component concerns how the atmospheric circulation itself might change with anthropogenic global warming. We have shown that GCMs robustly predict an increase in the length scale of eddies, and we have also explored the dynamical mechanisms whereby there might be a shift in the latitude of the jet stream associated with anthropogenic warming. Such shifts in the jet might cause large changes in regional climate, potentially larger than the globally-averaged signal itself. We have also shown that the tropopause robustly increases in height with global warming, and that the Hadley Cell expands, and that the expansion of the Hadley Cell is correlated with the polewards movement of the mid-latitude jet.

Betting and Belief: Prediction Markets and Attribution of Climate Change

Climate change and tourism: Time for environmental skepticism

&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; The Sri Lankan livestock sector (LS) which is essential to rural households' food systems and means of subsistence, contributed to 0.6% of the GDP in 2020. The cattle industry has contributed &lt;40% to the LS. The objective of the review was to determine how Sri Lankan LS, especially ruminants contributed to climate change (CC) by emitting greenhouse gasses (GHG). In the year 2020, in total there were 1 426 570 cattle, including neat cattle and buffaloes. Sri Lanka has experienced various impacts of CC as it is a tropical island in the Indian Ocean. The cattle industry is involved in CC directly and indirectly. Global warming (GW) is a predominant factor in CC. The emission of GHG in different ways is a root cause of GW. As a GHG, 17% of methane emissions in the atmosphere are accounted by the enteric fermentation of ruminants, especially by the large ruminants; cattle, and buffaloes. It is a complex process that occurs within the fore stomach (rumen) of ruminants where gases are released outside via a process called eructation. As a GHG, methane (CH4) contributes to GW 28 times higher than carbon dioxide produced in large ruminants by enteric fermentation. In Sri Lanka, the majority of the local indigenous cattle and buffaloes are used to eat low-quality grasses, straws, and other roughage which significantly increases the emission of CH4. A past study revealed that the CH4 emission factor estimated according to the IPCC (2006) Tier 2 methodology for an improved dairy cattle is 42 kg /head /year while a local dairy cow is 52 kg /head /year and 65 kg /head /year for dairy buffalo in Sri Lanka and the values are lower compared to default emission factors given by the IPCC (2006). The expected temperature rise in Sri Lanka, which would be primarily caused by GHG, will be slightly less than the average worldwide. However, the highest emission scenario predicts a 2.9o C–3.5o C increase in temperature by the 2090s. Therefore, instead of focusing solely on production, it is important to investigate measures to minimize GHG emitted by large ruminants under local management conditions.&#x0D; Keyword: Climate change, Enteric fermentation, Livestock, Methane&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D;

The increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases originated from burning fossil fuels, along with breeding, been appointed as the main causes of global climate change resulting from global warming in earth's atmosphere. These changes can cause serious impacts on the lives and livestock production mainly in tropical regions. Therefore, the aim with this work was to evaluate the effect of global warming on the climatological variables, thermal comfort index and animal production in the state of Paraiba. For this meteorological data from four meteorological stations by state and calculated the temperature humidity index used. The means analyzed from the difference between the normal period of 30 years (1961 to 1990) and the period of the last four years (2011-2015). The results showed that all regions of the state are suffering from climate change due to global warming and that there was an average elevation of ITU in recent years, indicating that changes in attitude should be intensified to allow the survival and productivity of animals does not become increasingly costly in the state.

Philip Kitcher, a philosophy professor at Columbia University, has written a book review, entitled “The Climate Change Debates” (Science, vol 328, 4 June, 2010, pp. 1230-34). His recipe for an “open discussion and debate” about climate change seems to be a one-sided coverage by an elitist, self-chosen group. “Genuine democratic participation” is out, in favor of “reliance on expert opinion.” And who might these ‘experts’ be? No surprise there; Kitcher knows – and shapes his review accordingly. Making his point, Kitcher then juxtaposes “aging” scientists to “serious” scientists. It’s all downhill from there. To emphasize his recommendation to deny a platform to “deniers” (his term), consider his choice of books for review. All eight books are basically polemics for anthropogenic global warming (AGW), with precious little science in them. Assuming a rough balance of such books on both sides of the AGW debate, the probability of such a choice by pure chance is about 0.39 percent. So much for balance. To make matters even worse, he plugs the very worst of the eight books selected – Merchants of Doubt, written by science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.1 It attempts to smear mainly four scientists, all physicists with long records of publications, public service, and honors. In defense of three of these (recently deceased), who were founders of the George C. Marshall Institute, the GMI has published a reply to this attack on the integrity of the Institute and its founders. The reply is available at http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/894.pdf and is worth quoting from: “Replete with half-truths and mischaracterizations, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s book besmirches the reputations of three great American scientists to silence dissent within the ranks of scientists and stifle debate among policy makers about how to respond to global warming. Their message is both antiscience and anti-democratic. Whether the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is desirable or not is irrelevant, the merits of their scholarship and its implications are clear. Predictably, they create a tobacco strawman and knock it

Parents’ perspectives about discussing climate change during well-child visits

Despite the growing scientific consensus about the risks of global warming and climate change, the mass media frequently portray the subject as one of great scientific controversy and debate. And yet previous studies of the mass public's subjective assessments of the risks of global warming and climate change have not sufficiently examined public informedness, public confidence in climate scientists, and the role of personal efficacy in affecting global warming outcomes. By examining the results of a survey on an original and representative sample of Americans, we find that these three forces-informedness, confidence in scientists, and personal efficacy-are related in interesting and unexpected ways, and exert significant influence on risk assessments of global warming and climate change. In particular, more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. We also find that confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. These results have substantial implications for the interaction between scientists and the public in general, and for the public discussion of global warming and climate change in particular.

Anthropogenic global warming has potentially caused regional record-high sea surface temperatures (SSTs) observed around the world, but it is not yet clarified to what extent climate change has increased the frequency of discrete extreme ocean warming (EOW) around Japan. In this study, the impact of climate change on EOW events in Japan&amp;#8217;s marginal seas is examined by focusing on each calendar month from January 1982 to December 2022 and on multiple areas including the Japan Sea, East China Sea, Okinawa, Taiwan, and South Korea. We analyzed 24 CMIP6 climate models that have the equilibrium climate sensitivity between 2 K and 5 K to estimate the probability of occurrences of monthly SSTs in the present and preindustrial conditions. The EOW event is defined as high SSTs less frequent than once per 20 years at the preindustrial level. The fraction of attributable risks (FAR) is used to quantify the impact of climate change on SSTs.In contrast to the gradually increasing occurrences of EOW events for the past 41 years, the most frequent EOW events occurred around 1998 and in the mid-2010s, especially in the southern side of Japan. The impact of climate change on EOW events is not yet dominant around 1998 but has multiplied the occurrence probability of most EOW events by at least twice since 2000. Based on our method, all the EOW events identified in 2022 are attributable to climate change. The regional and seasonal differences of the climate change impact on EOW events around Japan are discussed. In addition, this study suggests that the possibility of the future typical climate exceeding record high SSTs can be sharply reduced by limiting global warming levels from 2&amp;#176;C to 1.5&amp;#176;C, indicating rapid acceleration of mitigation efforts is critical.

"Climate change" vs. "Global warming": Different public perceptions, sentiments and explanatory factors in China

The global outcry for a sustainable energy system—energy transition regime, involves the substitution of fossil fuels with clean and affordable energy and the amelioration of greenhouse gas (GHG) effects on global health and environment. Studies have shown that economic growth proportionally links energy consumption, as seen in developed countries. Hence, countries with low economic activities such as those in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are supposedly not to panic over CO2 emissions. It is ascertained from energy reports, research articles, and several other sources of energy information and tools that economic activities in SSA resulted in 7.1% of the global share of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission. Ironically, despite this low share, the region is highly vulnerable to climate change due to low economic and technological advancement. The results of the studies on renewable energy (RE), CO2 emissions outlook, and global warming in SSA show that CO2 emission is increasing; global warming is about 0.5℃; anthropogenic global warming is between 0.8; and 1.2 °C locally and is increased at about 0.2 °C per decade. If not abated, a global warming of 1.5 °C will be reached between 2030 and 2053. To effectively boost RE deployment, and mitigate CO2 emissions in SSA, this study simplifies energy-GDP-CO2 nexus and identifies research and development areas to facilitate energy transition paradigm. The paper sees domestication of energy technology, deployment, and development of sustainable RE policies which are stern steps in mitigating CO2 emissions in SSA.