Category Archives: PLEA Network

PLEA Network

16 August 2016, Yale Climate Connections, TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science. This month’s video reports on a continuing evolution in recent years in TV weathercasters’ willingness to put their forecasts in the context of a warming climate. is month’s “This is Not Cool” Yale Climate Connections video reports several leading TV weathercasters’ views on discussing climate in the context of weather forecasting. 

Through their own words in a series of in-person and Skype interviews, plus clips from some recent broadcasts on extreme weather events, independent videographer Peter Sinclair’s video describes the rapidly evolving perspectives: prominent national and local broadcast meteorologists saying they now see it as their responsibility to keep certain weather events in the context of the changing climate. The TV weathercasters featured in the video relate how their views on the science of climate change have evolved in recent years. “I think you’re seeing more and more TV meteorologists understand that responsibility,” says Washington Post meteorologist Jason Samenow. Raleigh, N.C., WRAL-TV meteorologist Greg Fishel points to TV weathercasters being a principal link between the science community and the public, placing a “tremendous responsibility to make sure that we are not letting any ideology into our science reporting, that we are dealing with facts and relaying them as accurately as we can to the public.” Phoenix ABC 15 chief meteorologist Amber Sullins points to “a definite increase in the amount of extreme heat just in my life time there in the City of Phoenix.”“It’s irresponsible if you don’t put the current weather trends into some sort of climate context,” Samenow says. “There are some people who don’t want to hear about that, but you’re not telling the entire story if you just report the weather and you don’t explain how this weather fits into changes which are happening.” Read More here

PLEA Network

18 August 2016, Reuters, Scientists to probe ways of meeting tough global warming goal. Scientists on Thursday set the outlines of a report on how to restrict global warming to a limit agreed last year by world leaders – even though the temperature threshold is at risk of being breached already. The U.N.-led study, due to be published in 2018 as a guide for governments, will look into ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to cap the rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. It will examine impacts of a 1.5C rise on vulnerable parts of the world including Greenland’s ice sheet and coral reefs. Thelma Krug, a Brazilian scientist who led the four-day meeting in Geneva, said it will also cast the fight against climate change as part of a wider struggle to end poverty and ensure sustainable growth. “Rapid changes are needed for (no rise above) 1.5C,” she told Reuters.World leaders agreed to work towards that target at a meeting in Paris in December, also requesting the report as part of a global agreement to phase out greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, in the second half the century. The global rise reached 1.3C in the first half of 2016, which is almost certain to be the warmest year since records began in the 19th century, beating 2015. Some studies indicate emissions could breach levels consistent with 1.5C within about five years. Many show temperatures overshooting that limit and then being reduced later by extracting greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with yet-to-be developed technology. “It will be difficult, but there are also opportunities,” said Sabine Fuss, a delegate at the Geneva meeting from the Mercator Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. Costly action now could help avert even more expensive damage from floods, heat waves, extinctions and rising ocean levels, she said. Read More here

PLEA Network

17 August 2016, Renew Economy, First act of Coalition’s “innovation” government: strip funds from ARENA. Malcolm Turnbull’s Coalition government has taken a new line of attack against the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and sought to wedge Labor on the issue by adopting the Opposition’s own pre-election policy platform on the future of the agency. As part of its $6.5 billion “omnibus” budget repair package to be put to parliament in its first act of the new government, the Coalition proposes to change tack: instead of stripping all of the remaining $1.3 billion legislated funds in ARENA’s budget, it now proposes to remove $1.023 billion in funds – as proposed by Labor before the election. Labor’s threat to strip ARENA of $1 billion in funds was made in an apparent fit of pique earlier this year over the failure of NGOs to criticise the Turnbull government when it announced the creation of the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, using monies already allocated to the Clean Energy Finance Corp. Labor argued that instead of applauding a move by the Turnbull government to “re-brand” previously allocated monies, it should have been critical of the move to de-fund ARENA. So it decided to abandon its own support of the key agency. While Labor later said it was prepared to review that decision, party sources admitted to the Australian Financial Review on Wednesday that it remained a “grey area for us” because of their pre-election policy. On ABC Radio, treasury spokesman Chris Bowen refused to commit Labor to protecting ARENA. Stripping ARENA of $1 billion of funding would be a huge blow for the emerging technologies in Australia, which usually need grants to test out new business models and applications, as witnessed by ARENA’s support for two key battery storage projects in South Australia, and its support for large scale solar. Read More here

PLEA Network

16 August 2016, The Conversation, Our planet is heating – the empirical evidence. In an entertaining and somewhat chaotic episode of ABC’s Q&A (Monday 15th August) pitting science superstar Brian Cox against climate contrarian and global conspiracy theorist and now senator Malcolm Roberts, the question of cause and effect and empirical data was raised repeatedly in regard to climate change. Watching I pondered the question – what would I need to change my mind?After all, I should dearly love to be convinced that climate was not changing, or if it were, it were not due to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That would make things just so much easier, all round. So what would make me change my mind? There are two elements to this question. The first is the observational basis, and the question of empirical data. The second relates to cause and effect, and the question of the greenhouse effect. On the second, I will only add that the history of our planet is not easily reconciled without recourse to a strong greenhouse effect. If you have any doubt then you simply need to read my former colleague Ian Plimer. As I have pointed out before, in his 2001 award-winning book “A Short History of Planet Earth”, Ian has numerous references to the greenhouse effect especially in relation to what all young geologists learn as the faint young sun paradox: Read More here