Bob and Doug, the best friends on historic SpaceX-NASA mission

Issued on: 27/05/2020 - 19:16Modified: 27/05/2020 - 19:14

With their crew cuts, cool demeanor, short and precise sentences, Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley have all the traditional hallmarks of the men of NASA 

Bill INGALLS NASA/AFP/File


Kennedy Space Center (United States) (AFP)

Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley, the astronauts set to launch into orbit on a SpaceX rocket Wednesday, are both former military pilots, both recruited by NASA in 2000, and both married to fellow astronauts.

With their crew cuts, cool demeanor, short and precise sentences, they have all the traditional hallmarks of the men of NASA.

Smiling, reasonable, competent, reliable: in other words "The Right Stuff" of the early era of spaceflight.


They met in 2000 when they began their training at the space agency, and have been best friends ever since, said Hurley, 53.

Both of them attended military test pilot school, a well worn path to the astronaut corps.

Behnken, 49, holds a doctorate in mechanical engineering from the California Institute of Technology.

He signed up for the military during his studies and attended the elite Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

A colonel, he's flown more than 25 different aircraft, including the F-22 fighter.

Hurley was also a colonel and before joining NASA was a fighter pilot and test pilot in the Marine Corps, a specialist for the F/A‐18.

Between 2008 and 2011, they both flew two missions, separately, on the Space Shuttle.

In 2015, NASA assigned them their next mission: the first crewed flight of the Crew Dragon, built by SpaceX and initially planned for 2017.

- Dream mission -

"If you gave us one thing that we could have put on our list of dream jobs that we would have gotten to have some day, it would have been to be aboard a new spacecraft and conduct a test mission," Behnken told reporters when he arrived at the Kennedy Space Center from Houston last week.

It was through the astronaut corps that each of them met their wives, who have also space missions to their credit.

Behnken married Megan McArthur, and they have a six-year-old boy, Theodore.

Doug married Karen Nyberg, and they too have a son, Jack, aged 10.

The bond of friendship that unites the two men is an obvious asset for such a risky mission, where they each might have to take control of the spacecraft that is set to auto pilot by default.

Hurley is the more meticulous, even obsessive, of the two, said Behnken.

"If we have to get useless information, Doug is always the repository for that," joked Behnken in a video released by NASA.

Hurley himself admitted to being an expert in "obscure procedures."

As for Behnken, Hurley said his friend thinks of everything ahead of time. "He's already got it all figured out."

But he's no good at bluffing and "doesn't have a good poker face," added Hurley.

On Monday, the head of NASA texted the pair to ask one last time: are you sure you want to go ahead?

"They both came back and they said, 'we're go for launch,'" said Jim Bridenstine. "So they're ready to go."

It's a moment they've been training for the past five years.

© 2020 AFP

SpaceX readies for blast-off with NASA astronauts aboard

AFP / Gregg NewtonA SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket with the Crew Dragon spacecraft sits atop launch complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on May 25, 2020

Gray skies loomed over Florida's Atlantic coast Tuesday, just one day before two astronauts were set to blast off aboard a SpaceX capsule on the most dangerous and prestigious mission NASA has ever entrusted to a private company.

There was a 60 percent chance for favorable weather for Wednesday's flight, according to Tuesday's latest Cape Canaveral forecast.

US astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley have been in strict quarantine for two weeks ahead of their trip on the brand-new Crew Dragon capsule, which will be propelled by a Falcon 9 rocket.

Both the capsule and the rocket were manufactured by SpaceX, the start-up founded in 2002 by the then-thirty-something Elon Musk, a brilliant and brash Mars-obsessive who made his fortune with PayPal and also created the famous Tesla electric cars.

The Crew Dragon is to carry the astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), which orbits the Earth about 250 miles (400 kilometers) above sea-level at about 17,000 miles per hour.

The success of this mission is a point of national pride for the United States, which has depended on Russian rockets to reach space since its last crewed flight in 2011.

Neither the new coronavirus pandemic nor confinement measures to stop its spread were able to derail the launch, and President Donald Trump will become only the third US leader to watch the take-off of a human space flight in person, after Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

NASA/AFP / Bill INGALLS

Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken are seen in their spacesuits on May 23, 2020

"This is a unique moment where all of America can take a moment and look at our country do something stunning again," NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said.

In a nod to an earlier era of US space flight, Bridenstine resurrected a vintage 1970s NASA logo nicknamed "the worm," whose distinctive red font will adorn the rocket on Wednesday.

SpaceX made history in 2012 when it became the first private entity to dock a cargo capsule to the ISS. Two years later, NASA commissioned the company to modify the Dragon to carry passengers.

That was already Musk's original dream for the capsule anyway, according to SpaceX vice president Hans Koenigsmann.

"Cargo Dragon, we put a window on it so that people wouldn't forget about it," he said of the original ship design.

"We (were) founded with the idea of human spaceflight."

- Delays -

The program, into which NASA has invested more than $3 billion, is three years behind schedule.

AFP / Gregg NewtonThe chances of there being favorable weather for the launch was put at 60 percent, according to NASA

And a NASA-commissioned Boeing spacecraftcalled the Starliner, is even further delayed.

After a successful uncrewed test flight last year, a Crew Dragon capsule later exploded during a ground engine test. There were also issues developing the capsule's large parachutes.

But after thousands of checks and re-checks, NASA is finally ready to go -- or as ready as they can be to strap two people on top of a 500-ton rocket filled with combustible fuel.

AFP/File / Philip PachecoElon Musk founded SpaceX in 2002


"We never feel comfortable, because that's when you're not searching," said Kathy Lueders, head of NASA's commercial crew program.

"We're going to stay hungry until Bob and Doug come home," she said.

- 'Above geopolitics' -

Now, the weather is the last unpredictable variable.

But "the trend is in the right direction," Bridenstine said, despite the rain that forced his Tuesday press conference indoors and away from the big countdown clock outside.

The option to delay remains available until 45 minutes before the flight's scheduled departure at 4:33 pm (2033 GMT).

The next potential windows for blast-off are Saturday and Sunday.

After they reach orbit, it will take Hurley and Behnken around 19 hours to reach the ISS, where Bridenstine says they could stay until early August.

AFP / Gregg NewtonThe Falcon 9 rocket is seen May 25, 2020 ahead of its launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida

Their return will resemble the Apollo re-entries: a water landing in the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Florida.

If all goes well, the Crew Dragon could then begin regular flights from the United States to the ISS.

At the end of August, three other Americans and a Japanese astronaut are scheduled to fly on the ship, and Europe, Canada and Russia have been invited to participate in subsequent missions.

The Russians, with whom the US built the ISS, have agreed to continue their space partnership, according to Bridenstine, though they have not officially signed onto the new program.

"It's really above terrestrial geopolitics," he said. "Literally -- above terrestrial geopolitics."

26MAY2020

Thousands of protesters gather in Hong Kong amid Chinese anthem law debate

Pro-democracy demonstrators scuffle with riot police during a lunchtime protest as a second reading of a controversial national anthem law takes place in Hong Kong, China on May 27, 2020. 
© Tyrone Siu, Reuters
Text by:
NEWS WIRES

Thousands of protesters shouted pro-democracy slogans and insults at police in Hong Kong on Wednesday as lawmakers debated a bill criminalizing abuse of the Chinese national anthem in the semi-autonomous city. 

Police massed outside the legislative building ahead of the session and warned protesters that if they did not disperse, they could be prosecuted. 

In the Central business district, police raised flags warning protesters to disperse before they shot pepper balls at the crowd and searched several people. More than 50 people in the Causeway Bay shopping district were rounded up and made to sit outside a shopping mall, while riot police with pepper spray patrolled and warned journalists to stop filming.

In the Mong Kok district in Kowloon, some protesters set cardboard boxes and plastic on fire as demonstrations carried on into the night. The blaze was put out by firefighters.

Across Hong Kong, 360 people were arrested on charges including unauthorized assembly, possession of items that could be used for unlawful purposes — such as gasoline bombs — to driving slowly and blocking traffic, according to Facebook posts by the Hong Kong police force.

The bill would make it illegal to insult or abuse the Chinese national anthem, “March of the Volunteers” in semi-autonomous Hong Kong. Those guilty of the offense would face up to three years in prison and a fine of 50,000 Hong Kong dollars ($6,450).

Opponents of the bill say it is a blow to freedom of expression in the city, while Beijing officials say it will foster a patriotic spirit and socialist values.

'A symbol of the country's dignity'

“Western democracies all have laws to protect their national flags, national anthems and emblems. Any insulting acts toward these symbols would also be criminal,” pro-Beijing lawmaker Tony Tse said in the legislative debate.

Tse said the bill would not affect human rights or force people to love the country or support any political power. “The purpose of this is to protect the dignity of a country,” he said.

Pro-democracy lawmaker Charles Mok disagreed, saying the legislation would not help gain the respect of people and was an excuse to control freedom, speech and ideas of people.

“We oppose the second reading of the national anthem bill, not because we don’t respect the national anthem. The national anthem is a symbol of the country's dignity. If it wants to be respected, then let this government first respect the rights and freedoms of its people first," Mok said. 

The debate over the anthem bill is expected to continue on Thursday.

Bill proposed in January 2019

The bill was proposed in January 2019 after spectators from Hong Kong jeered at the anthem during high-profile international soccer matches in 2015. Last year, FIFA fined the Hong Kong Football Association after fans booed the national anthem at a World Cup qualifying game.

Hong Kong was returned to China from British colonial rule in 1997 under a “one country, two systems” framework that promised freedoms not found on the mainland. Anti-China sentiment has risen as residents see Beijing moving to erode those rights.

Mass protests in 2014, known as the Umbrella Revolution, followed the Chinese government’s decision to allow direct election of the city leader only after it screened candidates. In the end, the plan for direct elections was dropped.

Legislation proposed in Hong Kong last year that would have allowed Hong Kong residents to be sent to mainland China for trials set off months of demonstrations that at times involved clashes between protesters and police. The legislation was withdrawn.

China's ceremonial parliament now meeting in Beijing has moved to enact a national security law for Hong Kong aimed at forbidding secessionist and subversive activity, as well as foreign interference and terrorism. Hong Kong's own government has been unable to pass such legislation due to opposition in the city, and Beijing advanced the law itself after the protests last year.

Asked about possible U.S. retaliation over the security legislation, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said in Beijing that China would take necessary steps to fight back against what he called “erroneous foreign interference in Hong Kong’s affairs.”

IS COVID-19 A “CAPITALOCENE” CHALLENGE?

Posted on May 11, 2020 by carsoncenter

 \

Featured image courtesy of Elisabeth Abergel

By Jenia Mukherjee and Amrita Sen

Rapid shifts across nine planetary boundaries, including deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and climate change, have occurred as a result of the Anthropocene. As recent advances in research suggest, political, economic, and technocratic interests drive global development enterprises. “Capitalocene,” a word used frequently now, emphasizes the palpable connections between planetary transformations and the functioning of the capitalist machine.[1] The environmental social sciences, especially Ecological Marxism and, more recently, emerging discourses within the environmental humanities (EH), have drawn our attention to the systemic causes of environmental destruction, which have generated numerous crises scenarios for humanity. In this piece, we show how Covid-19 is a challenge emanating from the “Capitalocene” and argue that this framework provides a better understanding of global pandemics—their outbreak, spread, and the long-term (welfare) measures needed to prevent them.

What has led to the outbreak of Covid-19—the greatest pandemic “modernity” has so far been confronted with? Though the source of Covid-19 is still unknown, some studies suggest that it has a high level of similarity with viruses found among pangolins, while others confirm that it is a bat-borne infection. It is undoubtedly a zoonotic disease, in which a virus is genetically transmitted from animals to humans. While natural scientists argue that animals are hosts and carriers, environmental humanities scholars trace the real source to humans.[2]

The concept of “Capitalocene” provides a radical critique of the idea that capitalism is just about economics. It endorses the view that capitalism is also implicated in power and culture. The dramatic rise in meat consumption has to be understood as aligned with neoliberal lifestyles and global mass culture, where happiness as a material condition is linked to hedonistic gains, such as an increase in purchasing power and capitalist consumptive desires, in contrast to a eudemonic notion of wellbeing. For example, in countries like India, communities adhering to non-violent religious doctrines preached by Buddhism and Jainism traditionally practised vegetarianism. However, a cultural (and hence dietary) transformation has manifested in the rapid growth of the Indian poultry sector, which grew by around 8–10 percent annually between 1990 and 2010, with an annual turnover of US$7,500 million.[3] These sectors, and the processing methods they utilize to achieve rapid production targets, are largely unhealthy and unhygienic.

In Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching, Michael Greger exposed the links between capitalist live farming practices and virus ecology in the following lines, “If you actually want to create global pandemics, then build factory farms”[4] (fig. 1). The outbreak of deadly diseases, such as Ebola, SARS, Nipah, SADS, and avian influenza (H5N1), in the last two to three decades are all outcomes of rapid planetary changes. The challenges caused by live farming practices are manifold, with the risk of viral eruptions from (similar stock) reservoir species, the risk of the spread of infection through unhygienic waste disposal practices of factory farms, and the development of human resistance to antibiotics, etc. Moreover, the geographic extent of the live animal trade increases the rate at which disease agents explore their evolutionary possibilities. Apart from these risks, the cruelty inflicted on non-human species is beyond redemption. Exotic animals and endangered fish species are prey to illegal trafficking and trading networks, regulated by the powerful nexus of multi-national corporations in alliance with biotech companies and local collaborators, ever hungry for profits against irreversible ecological costs.[5]

Figure 1: Factors linking factory farms and pandemics[6]

Based on detailed research on the nature of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and coronavirus (SARS-CoV), researchers have concluded that human coronaviruses will re-emerge, multiply, and mutate, with the proliferation of intensive industrial farms and unsanitary wet markets.[7] Prospective medical advances like vaccines and medicines might not be sustainable solutions. The outbreak of pandemics over the last two decades make it clear that this is not a war between viruses and vaccines; rather, awareness and continued protest against injustices meted out by big capital and giant cartels are the key weapons of success. The continued assault on smaller maritime enterprises, farm production, domestic local markets, and indigenous soft infrastructures, encouraging global returns, will further expose the fault lines of disaster management mechanisms, eliciting a manifold of vulnerability scenarios. This calls for special attention to the protection of small-scale industries faced with the threat of co-optation and infringement. Policies, therefore, need to be not only redirected towards piecemeal containment strategies, but also towards systemic gaps within national development models.

The “Capitalocene” framework is significant in terms of exposing Covid-19 as a “neo-liberal disease” deeply embedded in the material and cultural fabric of our times.[8] It can be controlled only at the surface level—that is, temporarily suppressed—through the implementation of aggressive preventative measures, such as the development of vaccines and the formation of antibodies. Yet the crisis will keep recurring until structural inequities and injustices, manifesting in the omnipresent contradictions between capital and labor and human and nature are dealt with, and a just, democratic, sustainable, and resilient world order established. Food sovereignty, by guaranteeing locally manufactured diversified food production in different countries, will ensure parallel wellbeing of smallholder farmers and animals. It calls for appropriate and in-depth research to support diversified agricultural knowledge and skills across specific local contexts.

---

[1] Jason Moore writes, “Capitalocene is a kind of critical provocation to this sensibility of the Anthropocene, which is: We have met the enemy and he is us.”

[2] Thom van Dooren, “Pangolins and Pandemics: The Real Source of this Crisis is Human, not Animal,” newmatilda.com, published 22 March 2020, https://newmatilda.com/2020/03/22/pangolins-and-pandemics-the-real-source-of-this-crisis-is-human-not-animal/.

[3] Rajesh Mehta and R. G. Nambiar, “The Poultry Industry in India,” fao.org, published January 2007, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/events/bangkok2007/docs/part1/1_5.pdf.

[4] Michael Greger, Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching (New York: Lantern Books, 2006).

[5] In May 2019, the documentary Sea of Shadows directed by Richard Ladkani premiered at the Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society. The film shows how the vaquita, the world’s smallest whale, is near extinction, as its habitat is being destroyed by Mexican cartels and Chinese mafia, who harvest the swimming bladder of the totoaba fish, “the cocaine of the sea.” This is just one example of the numerous illegal trading and trafficking operations occurring across the planet.

[6] Links between Factory Farming & Pandemics/Epidemics. 2019. Farms Not Factories. https://farmsnotfactories.org/articles/if-you-want-pandemics-build-factory-farms/.

[7] Vincent C.C. Cheng et al., “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus as an Agent of Emerging and Reemerging Infection,” Clinical Microbiological Reviews 20, no.4 (2007): 660–694. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00023-07.

[8] Rob Wallace et al., “COVID-19 and Circuits of Capital,” Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, published 1 May 2020, https://monthlyreview.org/2020/04/01/covid-19-and-circuits-of-capital/.

---

Further Reading

Cheng, Vincent C.C., Susanne K.P. Lau, Patrick C.Y. Woo, and Kwok Yung Yuen. “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus as an Agent of Emerging and Reemerging Infection.” Clinical Microbiological Reviews 20, no.4 (2007): 660–694. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00023-07.

Greger, Michael. Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching. New York: Lantern Books, 2006.

Mehta, Rajesh, and R.G Nambiar. “The Poultry Industry in India.” fao.org. Published January 2007. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/events/bangkok2007/docs/part1/1_5.pdf.

Moore, J.W. “The Capitalocene, Part I: On the Nature and Origins of our Ecological Crisis.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 44, no.3 (2017): 594–630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1235036.

van Dooren, Thom. “Pangolins and Pandemics: The Real Source of this Crisis is Human, not Animal.” newmatilda.com. Published 22 March 2020. https://newmatilda.com/2020/03/22/pangolins-and-pandemics-the-real-source-of-this-crisis-is-human-not-animal/.

Wallace, Rob, Alex Liebman, Luis Fernando Chaves, and Rodrick Wallace. “COVID-19 and Circuits of Capital.” Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine. Published 1 May 2020. https://monthlyreview.org/2020/04/01/covid-19-and-circuits-of-capital/.

Share this:

The State of the Field of Environmental History
Article (PDF Available) in Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35(1) · November 2010  
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-040609-105431



John Mcneill

Abstract

This article reviews the state and evolution of the field of environmental history since about 1970. It focuses chiefly on the work of professional historians, but because environmental history is pursued by many varieties of scholars, it occasionally discusses the work of archeologists, geographers, and others. It offers a working definition of the field and an account of its origins, development, and institutionalization from the 1970s until 2010. It briefly surveys the literature on several world regions, concentrating most heavily on South Asia and Latin America, where environmental history at present has grown especially lively. It considers the prominence of Americanists (that is, historians of the United States, not the same thing as Americans) in the field and how that prominence is now waning. It reviews the utility of environmental history for historians, sketches some of the critiques of environmental history, and comments upon some signal findings of recent years.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228203552_The_State_of_the_Field_of_Environmental_History

THE USES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY: JOHN R. MCNEILL

Posted on March 1, 2017 by carsoncenter

 3 Comments

This is the first in a series of posts exploring the uses of environmental history. The series has been adapted from contributions to a roundtable forum published in the first issue of the new Journal for Ecological History, edited by the Renmin University’s Center for Ecological History.

---

 “As Useful as We Want to Be”

By John R. McNeill

Environmental or ecological historians do not “need to become more useful and practical” in anything. They should feel free to be useless as regards global problems if they wish. If their motives for engaging in environmental history are nothing loftier than curiosity, that is no sin.  The great majority of historical work, like the great majority of work in general, makes little to no contribution to addressing global problems. Just because environmental historians work with the environment, and the environment is the locus of some global problems, does not create any special obligation for environmental historians. Historians of slavery do not need to become more useful and practical in addressing human trafficking, just as labor historians do not need to become more useful and practical in addressing mass unemployment.

Indeed, for some environmental or ecological historians, it would require considerable retooling to be able to become more useful in addressing current global problems. Those whose expertise  focuses on the depiction of nature in late medieval Spanish texts or water management in the Chola kingdom^[1] probably have no better basis for addressing such global problems as climate change or biodiversity loss as the average citizen. But that should not mean that their topics are illegitimate because they are not deemed “useful.” Usefulness in the context of today’s problems should not be a requirement for historians. If it were, very little history, even environmental history, would be justifiable.

If environmental historians wish to become more useful and practical in addressing global problems, they should do so. Many find this ambition a compelling reason to pursue environmental history in the first place. Some labor or gender historians find motivation for their work in the hope that it will advance the cause of social equality. This is well and good, if it is their wish and not an expectation, or a fortiori a requirement.

One way to seek to be more useful and practical relies on belief in a variant of John Maynard Keynes’s words: “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”  Environmental historians might aspire to be the modern equivalent of Keynes’s defunct economist or academic scribbler (though few of us aspire to be defunct). They might hope their work will filter into the minds of people in power, albeit more likely not through their own words, but via popularizers and journalists. It probably will never happen for most of us, and the “practical men” and “madmen in authority” will get their unoriginal ideas elsewhere. But it might happen for some of us—for better or for worse.

Dr Stephen Pyne speaking at the 1910 Firefighter Graves Rededication Ceremony, Woodlawn Cemetery, St. Maries, ID, August 20, 2010. Photo by Forest Service Northern Region via Flickr (CC BY 2.0).

A second way is to become an authority on the recent history of a particular issue, as Stephen Pyne has done on wildfire and fire management in the US.^[2] From time to time, when the US Forest Service engages in reconsideration of its principles and policies, it invites Pyne to weigh in. Ultimately, he may be ignored more often than he might wish. But, every now and then, he gets a chance to influence fire management policy in the US.

Some parallel to Pyne’s route is open to some of us. No doubt, it requires persistence, good fortune, a tolerance for having our wisdom ignored, and calm in the face of the routine belief that “scientists’” views are more authoritative than those of historians. But it is possible to become a prominent expert on the recent history of a given current environmental issue, becoming influential through our writings and occasionally being invited to the table when policy discussions are convened.

As one who works in Washington, DC, I have been invited to help produce policy papers in think tanks that work hard to influence policy. These experiences have been educational, in an anthropological fieldwork sort of way, and enjoyable. But I have not seen a shred of evidence to suggest that my efforts made a scintilla of difference to anyone, let alone to those with their hands on the levers of power.^[3] Nor do I stand much chance of being among Keynes’s influential academic scribblers. This does not trouble me at all.

It does not trouble me partly because there is a third way, beyond the Keynes route and the Pyne route, to address global problems. It is even more indirect, and open only to those of us who are teachers: our students. Some of them seek to exercise power, and a few may succeed. To the extent that I can shape their outlook, their priorities, I can hope to wield some indirect influence upon global problems (although I confess that I see no evidence of that among my former students now in high places). Moreover, thousands of my former students are citizens and consumers, and it is possible that by exposing them to environmental history I have helped shape their behavior in ways that, however small, address global problems.

The other reason I am not troubled is my starting point: Environmental historians do not need to become more useful and practical. We should do so if we want to.

Coda 

Aedes aegypti. Coloured drawing by A.J.E. Terzi. Source: Wellcome Library, London. CC BY-SA 4.0

Since I wrote the above words, I have tried to make myself more useful. Some years ago, in order to write a book about ecology, disease, and warfare in Caribbean history, I learned a fair bit about a species of mosquito that has since acquired notoriety. Centuries ago, Aedes aegypti influenced the course of imperial politics by serving as the primary vector of yellow fever. It also can carry dengue, chikungunya, and other human diseases. Today it is famous as the chief vector of the Zika virus that is spreading around the world.

To date, Zika’s primary impacts have been felt in Brazil. But by late summer in 2016, it had infected more than 7,000 people in the US territory of Puerto Rico, and several cases had turned up in Florida. The US Congress came in for widespread criticism for doing nothing about it.

My education in mosquito matters is only skin deep, so it came as surprise when I was asked to “brief Congress” on the history of efforts to control A. aegypti. Together with Prof. Margaret Humphreys of Duke University (a historian of medicine), I turned up on the appointed September day, better dressed than usual—admittedly a low bar. Prof. Humphreys and I each spoke twice about the perils and promise of mosquito control, once for the House of Representatives and once for the Senate. We answered dozens of questions, most of them not about the past but about the future. We gave the impression that mosquito control nowadays is no easy proposition—for both political and biological reasons. We explained that no vaccine against Zika is likely to be available for two years or more, and there is no assurance an effective one will ever exist.

Zika briefing. Photo courtesy of the author.

The audience, all better dressed than I, consisted of a few dozen of what we call in Washington “Hill staffers,” meaning employees of members of Congress.^[4] As far as I could tell, not a single senator or representative attended. I was only mildly disappointed, because I had been advised to expect that “briefing Congress” did not mean speaking to anyone who was actually a member of Congress.

So I thought little about it and returned to my quotidian duties, as did Prof. Humphreys. Three weeks later, she emailed me with the news that Congress had just voted to approve $1.1 billion for Zika control (she apparently pays closer attention to US politics than I do). We jokingly congratulated each other on historians’ astounding power to shift the Congress out of its lethargy. Did we actually have any impact? Did the staffers to whom we spoke convey the gist of our remarks to their bosses? Did the senators and representatives take action because of what they heard? I don’t know, but I would guess not. I suspect I am still not one of Keynes’s consequential academics. But if I’m ever asked to brief Congress again, I’ll probably dig out my best clothes once more.

---

^[1] These examples are randomly generated. I am not aware of anyone who has such expertise; if anyone does and feels aggrieved at these exampled being used in this context, I apologize.

^[2] Pyne has written many fire histories, some of which delve into deep history, but what interests policy people in Pyne’s views on today’s issues is his work on recent history. Perhaps it also helps in his case that he worked as a fire fighter for many summers in his youth.

^[3] E.g., J.R. McNeill. “Can History Help Us with Global Warming?”  in Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Climate Change, ed. Kurt Campbell (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2008), 26–48.

^[4] They work on Capitol Hill, hence the phrase “Hill staffers.”

Dust bowl conditions of 1930s US now more than twice as likely to reoccur

Climate breakdown means conditions that wrought devastation across Great Plains could return to region

AND ACROSS THE UKRAINE WHICH IS WRONGLY CALLED THE HOLODOMOR  SINCE THE FAMINE WAS NOT MAN MADE BUT NATURAL RESULTING FROM THESE SAME CONDITIONS OCCURRING ACROSS THE PALLISER PLAIN ALSO WERE OCCURRING ACROSS THE SIBERIAN PLAIN. 

Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
Mon 18 May 2020
 

Abandoned farm buildings and machinery in the dust bowl caused by poor farming technique, as seen in May 1935. Photograph: Dorothea Lange/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images
THE FAMOUS DOROTHEA LANGE

The agricultural conditions known as a “dust bowl”, which helped propel mass migration among drought-stricken farmers in the US during the great depression of the 1930s, are now more than twice as likely to reoccur in the region, because of climate breakdown, new research has found.

Dust bowl conditions in the 1930s wrought devastation across the US agricultural heartlands of the Great Plains, which run through the middle of the continental US stretching from Montana to Texas. The conditions are caused by a combination of heatwaves, drought and farming practices, replacing the native prairie vegetation.

Those conditions occurred in the 1930s, when they exacerbated the woes that farmers were already experiencing because of the wider economy, after two record-breaking heatwaves in 1934 and 1936, which are still the hottest US summers on record.

The dust bowl wanderer – in pictures

Such conditions could be expected to occur naturally only rarely – about once a century. But with rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, dust bowl conditions are likely to become much more frequent events.

They are now at least two and a half times more likely to occur, with a frequency probability of about once in 40 years, according to projections by an international group of scientists published on Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.


If global temperatures rise by more than 2C (a rise of 3.6F) above pre-industrial levels, such heatwaves will become one-in-20-year events in the region, according to the study’s authors.

“Even highly industrialised parts of the world are vulnerable to extreme heat and drought,” said Friederike Otto, co-author of the study and acting director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford. “This is an important reminder that if we do not want events like the dust bowl, we need to get to net zero [greenhouse gas emissions] very soon,” she said.

Farming has changed in the region since the 1930s, with more widespread use of crop irrigation. But much of that relies on groundwater, which is also being severely depleted.

Huge fields, which encourage soil erosion; the tendency towards growing monocultures – vast areas given over to a single crop, such as maize or wheat; and a lack of natural vegetation all contribute to the creation of dust bowl conditions.

“If you don’t have trees anywhere, it’s much harder to keep water in the ground,” Otto said. “What crops you grow and how large the fields are have an effect on how the ground is able to hold water.”

Huge open fields with few borders have long been favoured by farmers as they are more efficient for mechanised tilling and harvesting. But in recent years some farmers have changed their practices to better conserve the soil, particularly after severe droughts in 2017.

Tim Cowan, lead author and research fellow at the University of Southern Queensland, said the study concentrated on the impacts of temperature rises but that land management would have a big impact too. However, improving land management could not remedy the damage done by the climate emergency. “Even though you have better practices in cropping now, the rises in temperature reduce those benefits, so there would still be a negative impact,” he said.

The researchers also found that there was a small but detectable impact from greenhouse gases on the dust bowl conditions of the 1930s.

Gabi Hegerl, co-author, and professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh, said: “With summer heat extremes expected to intensify over the US throughout this century, it is likely that the 1930s records will be broken in the near future.”

The climate model used by the researchers, developed at Oxford, runs on the personal computers of volunteers from around the world.

'The human fingerprint is everywhere': Met Office's alarming warning on climate

Exclusively compiled data from the Hadley Centre’s supercomputer shows alarming climate trajectory


Jonathan Watts@jonathanwatts THE GUARDIAN 

Wed 27 May 2020
 

Scientists at the Hadley Centre, which has been on the global frontline of climate monitoring, research and modelling since 1990, say their early theories have been proven by facts. 

Photograph: Hadley Centre

The human fingerprint on the climate is now unmistakable and will become increasingly evident over the coming decades, the UK Met Office has confirmed after 30 years of pioneering study.

Since the 1990s, global temperatures have warmed by half a degree, Arctic sea ice has shrunk by almost 2 million km2, sea-levels have risen by about 10cm and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 60 parts per million (17%), according to figures exclusively compiled for the Guardian to mark the 30th anniversary of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for climate science and services.

The data highlights how a young generation has grown up in a climate unprecedented in a millennium. Future projections suggest that by mid-century a 60-year-old Briton is likely to be living in a climate 1.2C warmer than when they were born.

Scientists at the Hadley Centre, which has been on the global frontline of climate monitoring, research and modelling since it opened in 1990, said early theories about fossil-fuel disruption have been proven by subsequent facts.

“The climate now is completely different from what we had 30 years ago. It is completely outside the bounds of possibility in natural variation,” said Peter Stott, a professor and expert on climate attribution science at the centre.
Margaret Thatcher, with Sir John Houghton, opening the Hadley Centre. She said the UK needed a world-leading climate centre to assess the “serious consequences” of greenhouse gas emissions. Photograph: Hadley Centre

In the Hadley Centre’s early projections, he said, scientists forecast 0.5C of warming in the UK between 1990 and 2020 as a result of emissions from oil, gas and coal: “We got it spot on.”

With new heat records being broken with increasing frequency, he said global temperatures were now above any level in the Met Office measurements since 1850, or indirectly calculated through tree rings going back thousands of years. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are also higher than anything seen in million-year-old ice cores. “We are seeing an unprecedented climate,” Stott said. “The human fingerprint is everywhere.”

The impact was less obvious in 1990, when the centre opened in conjunction with the publication of the first report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - both were overseen by the UK scientist John Houghton, who died earlier this year.

At the inauguration, the then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, said the UK needed a world-leading climate centre to assess the “serious consequences” of greenhouse gas emissions. “What it predicts will affect our daily lives. Governments and international organisations in every part of the world are going to have to sit up and take notice and respond,” she said.

Thatcher, who studied science at Oxford, needed little convincing, but she had to overcome a sceptical cabinet. Atmospheric physicists had been warning oil companies and policymakers about the dangers of fossil fuels for decades, but the “greenhouse effect” was still a relatively novel concern for the broader public. Nobody felt a change. The world had already warmed by about half a degree from pre-industrial levels, but this was low enough to be within natural variation.

Few people knew the difference between short-term “weather” and the “climate”, which is usually measured over a much longer period of 30 years.

Back then, there was also considerable scepticism about the ability of meteorologists to forecast change, even on a daily basis. Memories were fresh of the BBC weatherman Michael Fish infamously reassuring viewers that fears of a hurricane were unfounded, just hours before the fiercest storm in generations hit the UK.

“It was unglamorous” recalls James Murphy, a science fellow who was posted to the Hadley Centre from the beginning. “But the mood in the first decade was one of great excitement, because it was a chance to do a lot of pioneering research in a growing field.”

As acceptance and importance grew, so did scepticism. Critics, often funded by oil firms, pushed back against climate science because they did not like its political and economic implications. Ahead of the climate summits in Kyoto (1997) and Copenhagen (2009), fossil fuel companies funded misinformation campaigns to cast doubt on climate models.

The Hadley Centre remained focused on science. Researchers expanded and refined their models by incorporating new knowledge on biological carbon cycles and the likely impact of fossil fuels not only on temperature, but on Arctic ice, sea-level rise, flooding, storms, droughts and other atmospheric phenomena.

Supercomputer advances enabled much greater precision. Early models mapped the impact on grid cells of 300km on each side. Today that is down to 2.2km, which allows detailed predictions of which stretches of river basins and coastlines will need the most protection.

Researchers are discovering the impacts go far beyond the initial focus on average temperature. Heat records are being set with increasing frequency. Rainfall patterns are noticeably shifting beyond natural variation. Arctic ice is shrinking faster than expected. The rising seas have already left some places, such as Fairbourne in Wales, below spring-tide levels.

By 2050 – the year the UK plans to achieve carbon neutrality – the direct impact on Britain will be moderated by the surrounding ocean and there may be opportunities to plant new crops, but these benefits will be dwarfed by trade disruption, migration, humanitarian disasters and shifting ecosystems.

“Overall it’s bad. The negatives outweigh the positives,” said Richard Betts, a Met Office scientist who is leading scientific analysis for the next UK climate change risk assessment. “It stands to reason that if the world keeps gets hotter and hotter, sooner or later we’ll reach the point where it is first uncomfortable and then hard to function. This won’t be seen in the UK, but in parts of the world that are already hot and humid it could increasingly get too hot to function.”

The Hadley supercomputer calculates myriad possible pathways depending on how much carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere. The good news is that the worst-emissions scenario, known as RCP 8.5, is considered less likely than before because the global coal industry has not grown as feared. The bad news is current emissions trends (which lie between the RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 pathways) could take the planet to 2C warmer than pre-industrial levels by mid-century, which will increase storm damage, heatwaves, sea-level rise and the already great risk that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer.

The climate trends are based on multiple-year averages rather than year-on-year comparisons, which are more subject to natural variation.

Even the current best-case scenario – RCP 2.6, which is roughly in line with the Paris agreement – would leave the world hotter than today.

“What stands out is that even in the lowest current scenario, we get warming. We’ll need to prepare and adapt,” says Jason Lowe, the head of climate services at Hadley. He predicts extreme summer heatwaves, such as those seen in 2018, will become the norm rather than an exception.

“As a scientist, I want to narrow the uncertainty so the information is as good as possible so we can plan. I think of the generations to come. I have a nine-year-old daughter. I find myself wondering which of these pathways we will be on when she is 80 or 90.”

More extreme results are possible at both ends of the spectrum. The next set of climate assessments will introduce a more ambitious best-case scenario (RCP 1.9) that would mean a faster transition to zero-carbon energy and a greater chance of holding temperature rises below 1.5C. But the situation could worsen rapidly if the climate hits tipping points, such as the collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet.

“There are still dangers out there that we don’t fully understand,” said Stott. “Much of the uncertainty lies on the bad side. It could be terrifying. Can we grow enough crops to feed the population? Can we cope if some places are battered by storm after storm?”

Such concerns explain why the anniversary cannot be entirely triumphant. Despite growing evidence of climate risks, governments have been slow to act. Apart from downward blips such as the 2008 financial crisis and the coronavirus lockdown, emissions have steadily increased. The Hadley Centre’s work now is not only about predicting impacts, but preparing for them.

“Reality has proven that what we were saying 20 to 30 years ago was right. As scientists, that is vindication. But on a personal level, I hoped we would track a different emissions trajectory from where we are now,” Stott said.

“The worry is that we are now taking risks globally that we don’t fully understand ... there will be no winners of climate change if we continue. Scientific evidence has been around for a while. It is time it was taken seriously.”

Data source notes 

CHARTS ETC HERE 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/27/hadley-climate-centre-turns-30-the-human-fingerprint-is-everywhere

Observed September Arctic sea ice extent from HadISST.2.2.0.0 (selected as single source from Met Office climate dashboard.) Emission scenarios are the mean averages for climate scenarios SSP1-2.6 (low), SSP2-4.5 (medium-low) and SSP5-8.5 (high).

Observed changes in global mean sea level (GMSL) in metres from Nasa satellite data relative to 1981-2000 average. Emissions scenarios are 50th percentile projections from UKCP18 estimates, RCP2.6 (low), RCP4.5 (medium-low), and RCP8.5 (high).

Observed annual global temperature data from HadCRUT4. Emissions scenarios as above.

Annual temperature for the UK based on HadUK-Grid observations. Emissions scenarios as above.

All hindcast data omitted.

SIGN OF THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE
Scientists warn of 'zombie fires' in the Arctic

The risk of wildfires increases with warm, dry conditions(NOAA satellite photo showing cloud of smo ke from wildfire in western Greenland) Handout NOAA/AFP/File

Paris (AFP) 27/05/2020

Dormant "zombie fires" scattered across the Arctic region -- remnants of record blazes last year -- may be coming to life after an unusually warm and dry Spring, scientists warned Wednesday.

"We have seen satellite observations of active fires that hint that 'zombie' fires might have reignited," said Mark Parrington, a senior scientist and wildfire expert at the European Union's Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service.

The hotspots, which have yet to be confirmed by ground measurements, are particularly concentrated in areas that burned last summer.

The year 2019 was marked by fires unprecedented in scale and duration across large swathes of Siberia and Alaska.

In June -- the hottest on record, going back 150 years -- the blazes are estimated to have released 50 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, equivalent to Sweden's annual emissions.

"We may see a cumulative effect of last year's fire season in the Arctic which will feed into the upcoming season, and could lead to large-scale and long-term fires across the same region once again," Parrington said.

The risk of wildfires increases with hot weather and low humidity, and Europe in particular has seen record temperatures for March and April this year.

"There has been tremendous warmth in the Arctic that will have led to a lot of drying, making the peat soils ripe to burn," Mike Waddington, an expert on watershed ecosystems at McMaster University in Canada, told AFP.

"A zombie fire is a fire that continues to burn underground and then reignites on the surface after a period of time," Waddington explained.

- 'Holdover fires' -

Embers deep in organic soils such as peat lands can spark into flames weeks, months and even years later.

Scientists monitoring Alaska have seen a similar phenomenon.

"Fire managers noted increasing occurrences where fires survive the cold and wet boreal winter months by smouldering, and re-emerged in the subsequent spring," the Alaska Fire Science Consortium, grouping four universities and research institutes, reported in their Spring 2020 newsletter.

Since 2005, scientists on the ground in Alaska have identified 39 such "holdover fires", as they are also called.

Matching these observations with satellite data, they found that most of the fires were too small -- less than 11 hectares, and in most cases less than one -- to be detected. But seven of them were visible from space.

Last year's massive blazes were fuelled by record heat. Parts of Siberia and Alaska were up to 10 degrees Celsius warmer than normal for weeks at a time.

Temperatures in Greenland accelerated melting of the island's kilometres-thick ice sheet, resulting in a net loss of 600 billion tonnes of ice mass for the year -- accounting for about 40 percent of total sea level rise in 2019.

© 2020 AFP