Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[ChescoWx]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

Your county averaging method doesn't agree with your own Chescowx series and the year-to-year differences are probably even larger; smoothed somewhat by the decade averaging. Not surprising because you aren't controlling for differences in average temperature between stations. Every time you add or subtract a station you change the average.

 

NOAA on-the-other-hand agrees very well with the ERA5 re-analysis developed by EMWCF, both on year-to-year temperature changes and on the overall warming since 1950. NOAA and ERA5 are completely independent using different datasets and methods, so agreement at the County level increases confidence in both series. Bottom-line - scientists have a good handle on Chester County temperature trends. If you aren't matching NOAA or ERA5 you aren't getting an accurate depiction of our local climate.  Below is a link which provides background on ERA5, which has land temperature data back to 1950. Note that I can only get ERA data for a lat/long square that approximates Chesco.

https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-reanalysis

In reality Charlie quite the opposite....as you add more stations you decrease variability when averaging. There is no need to "control" or change the actual data after the fact.  I have all available possible stations that should be in the NCEI Chester County average. Below is all available actual stations temps vs the post hoc adjusted averages just since 1970. You can as always see the significant cooling adjustments applied to the 1970's-1980's and 1990's....and then of course the gentle warming adjustments to the 2000's and 2010's. No wonder we only like to show the scary red after adjustments on TV and here....it clearly does a much better job supporting the climate alarmists agenda! If we showed the raw data it would not be alarming at all!! So Charlie we discussed earlier why we had to chill the 1920s/1930's/1940's (time of obs etc.) so what was the reason for the continued cooling after the fact adjustments from the 1970's thru 1990's and now the warming adjustments being applied over the last 20 years?? Was it time of obs bias? station siting? bad equipment?? If any of the above can you show us by station which ones were problematic and how the applied adjustments were calculated? 

[chubbs]

12 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

In reality Charlie quite the opposite....as you add more stations you decrease variability when averaging. There is no need to "control" or change the actual data after the fact.  I have all available possible stations that should be in the NCEI Chester County average. Below is all available actual stations temps vs the post hoc adjusted averages just since 1970. You can as always see the significant cooling adjustments applied to the 1970's-1980's and 1990's....and then of course the gentle warming adjustments to the 2000's and 2010's. No wonder we only like to show the scary red after adjustments on TV and here....it clearly does a much better job supporting the climate alarmists agenda! If we showed the raw data it would not be alarming at all!! So Charlie we discussed earlier why we had to chill the 1920s/1930's/1940's (time of obs etc.) so what was the reason for the continued cooling after the fact adjustments from the 1970's thru 1990's and now the warming adjustments being applied over the last 20 years?? Was it time of obs bias? station siting? bad equipment?? If any of the above can you show us by station which ones were problematic and how the applied adjustments were calculated? 

I see why you like the "averaging" method. It shows less warming than the data collected in your own backyard

[ChescoWx]

16 minutes ago, chubbs said:

I see why you like the "averaging" method. It shows less warming than the data collected in your own backyard

Of course this actual raw data is way beyond my backyard

[LibertyBell]

On 3/12/2024 at 11:40 PM, GaWx said:

The unexpected radiative impact of the Hunga Tonga eruption of 15th January 2022
 

The extremely large water vapour availability (more than 100 Tg of water vapour were injected in the stratosphere during the event) was the possible reason for the observed rapid conversion of volcanic SO₂ emissions to secondary sulfate aerosols. The large stratospheric water vapour perturbation associated with the HT eruption had also a fundamental role in the plume’s radiative impacts during the first weeks after the eruption, causing a fast radiatively-driven plume descent and a warming effect on the climate system. These very peculiar radiative impacts, as well as the long-term impacts of the HT eruption on the stratospheric composition, must be followed and confirmed during the next months with further studies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00618-z

why did this volcano have so much water vapor in it?

[Typhoon Tip]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

why did this volcano have so much water vapor in it?

Series of smaller eruptions fractured the inner cone bed and the ocean caved in all at once and flooded the subterranean magma chamber 

[LibertyBell]

15 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Series of smaller eruptions fractured the inner cone bed and the ocean caved in all at once and flooded the subterranean magma chamber 

This is really interesting.

In a sci fi series I'm watching aliens who want to eradicate humans from the planet and make it more suitable for them to live on, dig a chamber under Yellowstone and fill it with water, thus hastening the eruption of the supervolcano, and the added water in the chamber they've been digging for 80 years would make it so much worse.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

This is pretty cool ..

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/business/india-adani-green-energy-plant-climate-intl-hnk/index.html

[LibertyBell]

On 3/20/2024 at 9:55 AM, Typhoon Tip said:

This is pretty cool ..

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/business/india-adani-green-energy-plant-climate-intl-hnk/index.html

You have a pesticide infested cancer infesting your posts, it's time we all write a letter to the admin to get Greenskeeper's account banned on here for good.

The trash needs to be removed.

[Typhoon Tip]

4 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

You have a pesticide infested cancer infesting your posts, it's time we all write a letter to the admin to get Greenskeeper's account banned on here for good.

The trash needs to be removed.

Um.  What?

oh that. Heh. I don’t care. Ultimately a pure waste of that person’s time. It means 0

[ChescoWx]

[Typhoon Tip]

58 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Depends on what ethos is being satirized. That comic is more social/behavioral norm stuff, out there amid our overbearingly scrutinizing, self-aware obsessed society right now. Human behavioral-science -related.

Where it matters to a climate science? It is way more apt to suggest that authors of credible, objective science are increasingly more reluctant to publish, fearing a counter-offensive abasement tactic by what is really near-institutionalized denial that is not in the spirit 'scientific skepticism.'  

[chubbs]

 

[Bhs1975]

 

Not many folks care about a lake freezing less but they will care when those trillions of dollars of multimillion dollar properties get swallowed up by the ocean.

[Typhoon Tip]

and the hits just keep on comin'

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-climate-australia-soil-emit-global.html

[LibertyBell]

20 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

and the hits just keep on comin'

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-climate-australia-soil-emit-global.html

I'm putting this here because there are several health problems associated with fossil fuels and the climate is not even the worst of them.  Bolded part--

 

https://www.popsci.com/environment/plastic-chemicals-are-inescapable-and-theyre-messing-with-our-hormones/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

If you were to create a recipe for plastics, you’d need a very big cookbook. In addition to fossil fuel-based building blocks like ethylene and propylene, this ubiquitous material is made from a dizzying amalgam of more than 16,000 chemicals—colorants, flame retardants, stabilizers, lubricants, plasticizers, and other substances, many of whose exact functions, structures, and toxicity are poorly understood.

What is known presents many reasons for concern. Scientists know, for example, that at least 3,200 plastic chemicals pose risks to human health or the environment. They know that most of these compounds can leach into food and beverages, and that they cost the U.S. more than $900 billion in health expenses annually. Yet only 6 percent of plastic chemicals—which can account for up to 70 percent of a product’s weight—are subject to international regulations.

Over the past few months, a flurry of studies and reports have highlighted one group of substances as particularly problematic: “endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” or EDCs. These chemicals, released at every stage of the plastic life cycle, mimic hormones and interfere with the metabolic and reproductive systems. They were recently found in samples of plastic food packaging from around the world, and a study published last month linked them to 20 percent  the United States’ preterm births. 

The unchecked production, distribution, and disposal of plastics and other petrochemical-based products has led to “a perpetual cycle of human exposure to EDCs from contaminated air, food, drinking water, and soil,” Tracey Woodruff, a professor of reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month. Philip Landrigan, a public health physician and professor of epidemiology at Boston College, told Grist that the crisis has “quietly and insidiously gotten worse while all attention has been focused on the climate.”

Although some policymakers have taken steps to protect people from EDCs—the European Commission, for example, in 2022 proposed stricter labeling regulations that would require companies to alert consumers of their hazards—many in the field believe the overarching response has been incommensurate with the scale of the crisis. Because so many plastics and petrochemical products are traded internationally, some endocrinologists and public health authorities believe a global approach is needed. 

 

“This is an international problem that is affecting our world and its future,” said Andrea Gore, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Texas, Austin.

Gore and others are appealing to the negotiators of the U.N. global plastics treaty, who meet for their next round of talks next month in Ottawa, Canada. There is increasing interest among delegates for a treaty that not only protects the environment, but public health—a step that the international nature of the EDC problem makes clear must be taken.

 

[LibertyBell]

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist’s weekly newsletter here.

If you were to create a recipe for plastics, you’d need a very big cookbook. In addition to fossil fuel-based building blocks like ethylene and propylene, this ubiquitous material is made from a dizzying amalgam of more than 16,000 chemicals—colorants, flame retardants, stabilizers, lubricants, plasticizers, and other substances, many of whose exact functions, structures, and toxicity are poorly understood.

What is known presents many reasons for concern. Scientists know, for example, that at least 3,200 plastic chemicals pose risks to human health or the environment. They know that most of these compounds can leach into food and beverages, and that they cost the U.S. more than $900 billion in health expenses annually. Yet only 6 percent of plastic chemicals—which can account for up to 70 percent of a product’s weight—are subject to international regulations.

Over the past few months, a flurry of studies and reports have highlighted one group of substances as particularly problematic: “endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” or EDCs. These chemicals, released at every stage of the plastic life cycle, mimic hormones and interfere with the metabolic and reproductive systems. They were recently found in samples of plastic food packaging from around the world, and a study published last month linked them to 20 percent  the United States’ preterm births. 

The unchecked production, distribution, and disposal of plastics and other petrochemical-based products has led to “a perpetual cycle of human exposure to EDCs from contaminated air, food, drinking water, and soil,” Tracey Woodruff, a professor of reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month. Philip Landrigan, a public health physician and professor of epidemiology at Boston College, told Grist that the crisis has “quietly and insidiously gotten worse while all attention has been focused on the climate.”

Although some policymakers have taken steps to protect people from EDCs—the European Commission, for example, in 2022 proposed stricter labeling regulations that would require companies to alert consumers of their hazards—many in the field believe the overarching response has been incommensurate with the scale of the crisis. Because so many plastics and petrochemical products are traded internationally, some endocrinologists and public health authorities believe a global approach is needed. 

 

“This is an international problem that is affecting our world and its future,” said Andrea Gore, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Texas, Austin.

Gore and others are appealing to the negotiators of the U.N. global plastics treaty, who meet for their next round of talks next month in Ottawa, Canada. There is increasing interest among delegates for a treaty that not only protects the environment, but public health—a step that the international nature of the EDC problem makes clear must be taken.

---

The endocrine system is complex, involving a series of glands throughout the body that secrete chemical messengers called hormones. These molecules lock onto a cell’s receptors to induce some kind of response: perhaps the production of another hormone, or the correction of a nutrient imbalance. Endocrine hormones control a long list of necessary human functions like growth, metabolism, reproduction, lactation, and managing blood sugar—any malfunction, let alone absence, of these processes can lead to health problems like infertility, diabetes, hypertension, and death.

EDCs tamper with the endocrine system, often by mimicking hormones to trigger the corresponding response, or by blocking them to prevent it from happening at all. Research has identified at least 1,000 of these substances in pesticides, inks, building materials, cosmetics, and plastic products, but the nonprofit Endocrine Society, whose members include physicians and scientists, calls this “only the tip of the iceberg” due to the enormous number of chemicals yet to be tested.

Some of the most common or familiar EDCs found in plastics include phthalates, used to make the material more flexible; bisphenol A, or BPA, used to make strong, clear products; and PFAS, a class of more than 14,000 chemicals used to make food containers, outdoor clothing, and other products oil- or water-repellent. Other EDCs of concern include organophosphate ethers, benzotriazoles, and PBDEs, all of which are used to make plastic products fire- and light-resistant. 

What makes this particularly worrisome is that humans can be exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals simply by touching plastic, inhaling microplastics within dust, and eating food or drinking water that has been in contact with plastic. According to one 2022 study, more than 1,000 chemicals—including many EDCs—commonly used in packaging like takeout containers can migrate into food. A separate study from 2021 found that more than 2,000 chemicals can leach from a single plastic product into water.

As noted in a report published last month by the Endocrine Society and the nonprofit International Pollutants Elimination Network, or IPEN, exposure to endocrine-disrupting substances can occur throughout the plastic life cycle. Fracking for oil and gas—the material’s main ingredients—uses more than 750 chemicals, many of which are known or suspected endocrine disruptors, and people living near these operations may have an elevated risk of developmental or reproductive problems. More EDCs are released during plastics manufacturing, sometimes in air and water emissions, other times on the backs of nurdles, tiny plastic pellets that can be shaped into larger products. These pebble-sized pieces often spill directly from factories or during transportation, and can release their chemicals once in the environment.

At the end of the plastic life cycle, incinerators and landfills can release PFAS, dioxins, PCBs, and other endocrine disruptors as air or soil pollution—some of which may contaminate nearby food supplies. Littered plastics tend to make their way into the ocean, where they break down into microplastics and leach some of those same EDCs, along with others like dibutyltin and mercury.

Those facing the greatest risk tend to be residents of low-income communities and people of color. “They’re more likely to be living in areas where there’s more pollution,” Gore said—like from nearby plastics manufacturing facilities or waste disposal sites. Plus, she added, low-income families often live without easy access to fresh produce and are more dependent on foods packaged in plastic. “We know people of lower socioeconomic status have disproportionate exposures.”

---

Reducing exposure to endocrine disruptors presents a challenge for several reasons. The biggest is the U.S. and other countries’ lax approach to chemical regulation, which doesn’t usually require that new compounds be tested for endocrine-disrupting properties or other safety concerns before they can enter production and get incorporated into products. “Right now we operate on the basis that all chemicals are innocent until proven guilty,” Landrigan told Grist.

Even when scientists agree that something is harmful, bureaucratic delays and industry lobbying often impede regulation. The Toxics Substances Control Act, or TSCA—the United States’ main chemical law—has for example only banned a handful substances in the nearly 50 years since it was passed, a period in which at least 100,000 new chemicals have entered the market, according to Landrigan. This is partly due to the unrealistic expectation that scientists draw a direct, causal link between a substance and specific health effects, which would require unethically exposing people to toxicants and observing the outcomes.

Another unfortunate side effect of that expectation is a phenomenon called “regrettable substitution,” where companies swap chemicals known to be harmful for lookalikes that haven’t been studied as extensively. Later research often reveals the substitute is just as toxic as the original, if not more so. This has occurred on a wide scale with EDCs such as PFAS, as well as bisphenols—although now that several countries have restricted BPA from plastic products like baby bottles, products labeled (often inaccurately) as free from that substance are now being manufactured with bisphenol S, despite research suggesting it also disrupts the endocrine system.

Some scientists accuse the chemical industry of “weaponizing uncertainty” to delay or kill regulation, a strategy they liken to Big Oil’s campaign to raise doubt about the reality of climate change. But for many EDCs in particular, they agree there is strong enough associative evidence of their harms—from cell and animal studies, as well as observations in people who have been exposed to the chemicals at work or as a result of an accident—to warrant bans and restrictions.

Scientists and public health advocates have been trying to reform chemical regulations for years now, but the U.N.’s global plastics treaty presents an opportunity to do so on an international level. “A global treaty can’t reform TSCA,” Landrigan said, “but it can set benchmarks telling countries that if they want to ship their products internationally, they have to conform to certain standards.”

One leading proposal for the treaty is that negotiators create a comprehensive inventory of the many chemicals used in plastic production, along with a list of “chemicals of concern” identifying which should be prioritized for phasing out. According to Sara Brosché, a science adviser for IPEN, this list should include classes of chemicals rather than individual ones. “EDCs would be one very clear category” to be phased out, she told Grist, along with carcinogens and so-called “persistent organic pollutants” that don’t break down naturally in the environment.

Scientists also support listing and phasing out “polymers of concern,” the types most likely to contain EDCs and other hazardous substances. Polyvinyl chloride, for example—frequently used in plastic water pipes—can expose people to endocrine disruptors including benzene, phthalates, and bisphenols.

So far, these ideas have only been suggested for inclusion in the treaty; negotiators don’t even have a first draft yet, and are still debating whether the primary goal should be to “end plastic pollution” or to “protect human health and the environment … by ending plastic pollution.” The existing text, a laundry list of nearly every suggestion made thus far, leaves plenty of room for countries to simply “minimize,” “manage,” or vaguely “regulate” hazardous plastic chemicals, rather than eliminate them altogether. The final draft is due by year’s end, though many expect an extension, with further negotiations continuing into 2025.

To Landrigan and many others, the most important thing is that the treaty include a global cap on plastic production, which could triple by 2060 to more than 1.2 billion metric tons annually if current trends continue. That’s the weight of more than 118,000 Eiffel Towers. “We see the current exponential increase in plastic production as simply not sustainable,” he said. “It will overwhelm the planet.” Less plastic will mean fewer opportunities for EDC exposure, he added. And that will surely save lives.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/science/plastic-chemicals-are-inescapable-and-theyre-messing-with-our-hormones/.

[GaWx]

-For the period 1955-80, 43% of all months were -NAO (-0.25 or lower) vs 40% +NAO (+0.25+).

-For the period 1981-2023, only 36% were -NAO vs 45% +NAO.

-So, -NAO month frequency has dropped from 43% 1955-80 to only 36% 1981-2023 while +NAO freq has increased from 40% to 45%

-Winter -NAOs during 1955-80 were much more common than they’ve been since.

-Summer -NAOs since 2007 have become much more common than they were previous to 2007.

-1981-2023: only 19% of Jans had a -NAO vs 35% of Aprils, 47% of both Mays and Junes, and 44% of Julys.

 I’m wondering how likely AGW/CC has been a major factor in these changes. Anyone have any idea? @bluewave

@LibertyBell may have an opinion.

[Typhoon Tip]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist’s weekly newsletter here.

If you were to create a recipe for plastics, you’d need a very big cookbook. In addition to fossil fuel-based building blocks like ethylene and propylene, this ubiquitous material is made from a dizzying amalgam of more than 16,000 chemicals—colorants, flame retardants, stabilizers, lubricants, plasticizers, and other substances, many of whose exact functions, structures, and toxicity are poorly understood.

What is known presents many reasons for concern. Scientists know, for example, that at least 3,200 plastic chemicals pose risks to human health or the environment. They know that most of these compounds can leach into food and beverages, and that they cost the U.S. more than $900 billion in health expenses annually. Yet only 6 percent of plastic chemicals—which can account for up to 70 percent of a product’s weight—are subject to international regulations.

Over the past few months, a flurry of studies and reports have highlighted one group of substances as particularly problematic: “endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” or EDCs. These chemicals, released at every stage of the plastic life cycle, mimic hormones and interfere with the metabolic and reproductive systems. They were recently found in samples of plastic food packaging from around the world, and a study published last month linked them to 20 percent  the United States’ preterm births. 

The unchecked production, distribution, and disposal of plastics and other petrochemical-based products has led to “a perpetual cycle of human exposure to EDCs from contaminated air, food, drinking water, and soil,” Tracey Woodruff, a professor of reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month. Philip Landrigan, a public health physician and professor of epidemiology at Boston College, told Grist that the crisis has “quietly and insidiously gotten worse while all attention has been focused on the climate.”

Although some policymakers have taken steps to protect people from EDCs—the European Commission, for example, in 2022 proposed stricter labeling regulations that would require companies to alert consumers of their hazards—many in the field believe the overarching response has been incommensurate with the scale of the crisis. Because so many plastics and petrochemical products are traded internationally, some endocrinologists and public health authorities believe a global approach is needed. 

 

“This is an international problem that is affecting our world and its future,” said Andrea Gore, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Texas, Austin.

Gore and others are appealing to the negotiators of the U.N. global plastics treaty, who meet for their next round of talks next month in Ottawa, Canada. There is increasing interest among delegates for a treaty that not only protects the environment, but public health—a step that the international nature of the EDC problem makes clear must be taken.

---

The endocrine system is complex, involving a series of glands throughout the body that secrete chemical messengers called hormones. These molecules lock onto a cell’s receptors to induce some kind of response: perhaps the production of another hormone, or the correction of a nutrient imbalance. Endocrine hormones control a long list of necessary human functions like growth, metabolism, reproduction, lactation, and managing blood sugar—any malfunction, let alone absence, of these processes can lead to health problems like infertility, diabetes, hypertension, and death.

EDCs tamper with the endocrine system, often by mimicking hormones to trigger the corresponding response, or by blocking them to prevent it from happening at all. Research has identified at least 1,000 of these substances in pesticides, inks, building materials, cosmetics, and plastic products, but the nonprofit Endocrine Society, whose members include physicians and scientists, calls this “only the tip of the iceberg” due to the enormous number of chemicals yet to be tested.

Some of the most common or familiar EDCs found in plastics include phthalates, used to make the material more flexible; bisphenol A, or BPA, used to make strong, clear products; and PFAS, a class of more than 14,000 chemicals used to make food containers, outdoor clothing, and other products oil- or water-repellent. Other EDCs of concern include organophosphate ethers, benzotriazoles, and PBDEs, all of which are used to make plastic products fire- and light-resistant. 

What makes this particularly worrisome is that humans can be exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals simply by touching plastic, inhaling microplastics within dust, and eating food or drinking water that has been in contact with plastic. According to one 2022 study, more than 1,000 chemicals—including many EDCs—commonly used in packaging like takeout containers can migrate into food. A separate study from 2021 found that more than 2,000 chemicals can leach from a single plastic product into water.

As noted in a report published last month by the Endocrine Society and the nonprofit International Pollutants Elimination Network, or IPEN, exposure to endocrine-disrupting substances can occur throughout the plastic life cycle. Fracking for oil and gas—the material’s main ingredients—uses more than 750 chemicals, many of which are known or suspected endocrine disruptors, and people living near these operations may have an elevated risk of developmental or reproductive problems. More EDCs are released during plastics manufacturing, sometimes in air and water emissions, other times on the backs of nurdles, tiny plastic pellets that can be shaped into larger products. These pebble-sized pieces often spill directly from factories or during transportation, and can release their chemicals once in the environment.

At the end of the plastic life cycle, incinerators and landfills can release PFAS, dioxins, PCBs, and other endocrine disruptors as air or soil pollution—some of which may contaminate nearby food supplies. Littered plastics tend to make their way into the ocean, where they break down into microplastics and leach some of those same EDCs, along with others like dibutyltin and mercury.

Those facing the greatest risk tend to be residents of low-income communities and people of color. “They’re more likely to be living in areas where there’s more pollution,” Gore said—like from nearby plastics manufacturing facilities or waste disposal sites. Plus, she added, low-income families often live without easy access to fresh produce and are more dependent on foods packaged in plastic. “We know people of lower socioeconomic status have disproportionate exposures.”

---

Reducing exposure to endocrine disruptors presents a challenge for several reasons. The biggest is the U.S. and other countries’ lax approach to chemical regulation, which doesn’t usually require that new compounds be tested for endocrine-disrupting properties or other safety concerns before they can enter production and get incorporated into products. “Right now we operate on the basis that all chemicals are innocent until proven guilty,” Landrigan told Grist.

Even when scientists agree that something is harmful, bureaucratic delays and industry lobbying often impede regulation. The Toxics Substances Control Act, or TSCA—the United States’ main chemical law—has for example only banned a handful substances in the nearly 50 years since it was passed, a period in which at least 100,000 new chemicals have entered the market, according to Landrigan. This is partly due to the unrealistic expectation that scientists draw a direct, causal link between a substance and specific health effects, which would require unethically exposing people to toxicants and observing the outcomes.

Another unfortunate side effect of that expectation is a phenomenon called “regrettable substitution,” where companies swap chemicals known to be harmful for lookalikes that haven’t been studied as extensively. Later research often reveals the substitute is just as toxic as the original, if not more so. This has occurred on a wide scale with EDCs such as PFAS, as well as bisphenols—although now that several countries have restricted BPA from plastic products like baby bottles, products labeled (often inaccurately) as free from that substance are now being manufactured with bisphenol S, despite research suggesting it also disrupts the endocrine system.

Some scientists accuse the chemical industry of “weaponizing uncertainty” to delay or kill regulation, a strategy they liken to Big Oil’s campaign to raise doubt about the reality of climate change. But for many EDCs in particular, they agree there is strong enough associative evidence of their harms—from cell and animal studies, as well as observations in people who have been exposed to the chemicals at work or as a result of an accident—to warrant bans and restrictions.

Scientists and public health advocates have been trying to reform chemical regulations for years now, but the U.N.’s global plastics treaty presents an opportunity to do so on an international level. “A global treaty can’t reform TSCA,” Landrigan said, “but it can set benchmarks telling countries that if they want to ship their products internationally, they have to conform to certain standards.”

One leading proposal for the treaty is that negotiators create a comprehensive inventory of the many chemicals used in plastic production, along with a list of “chemicals of concern” identifying which should be prioritized for phasing out. According to Sara Brosché, a science adviser for IPEN, this list should include classes of chemicals rather than individual ones. “EDCs would be one very clear category” to be phased out, she told Grist, along with carcinogens and so-called “persistent organic pollutants” that don’t break down naturally in the environment.

Scientists also support listing and phasing out “polymers of concern,” the types most likely to contain EDCs and other hazardous substances. Polyvinyl chloride, for example—frequently used in plastic water pipes—can expose people to endocrine disruptors including benzene, phthalates, and bisphenols.

So far, these ideas have only been suggested for inclusion in the treaty; negotiators don’t even have a first draft yet, and are still debating whether the primary goal should be to “end plastic pollution” or to “protect human health and the environment … by ending plastic pollution.” The existing text, a laundry list of nearly every suggestion made thus far, leaves plenty of room for countries to simply “minimize,” “manage,” or vaguely “regulate” hazardous plastic chemicals, rather than eliminate them altogether. The final draft is due by year’s end, though many expect an extension, with further negotiations continuing into 2025.

To Landrigan and many others, the most important thing is that the treaty include a global cap on plastic production, which could triple by 2060 to more than 1.2 billion metric tons annually if current trends continue. That’s the weight of more than 118,000 Eiffel Towers. “We see the current exponential increase in plastic production as simply not sustainable,” he said. “It will overwhelm the planet.” Less plastic will mean fewer opportunities for EDC exposure, he added. And that will surely save lives.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/science/plastic-chemicals-are-inescapable-and-theyre-messing-with-our-hormones/.

`FYI - I started a thread in this sub-forum that hosts 'general pollution' topics ... I don't personally care where it goes but it may be apropos there.  Granted it's a slower burn and not as attention getting as this one. 

[LibertyBell]

41 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

`FYI - I started a thread in this sub-forum that hosts 'general pollution' topics ... I don't personally care where it goes but it may be apropos there.  Granted it's a slower burn and not as attention getting as this one. 

Thanks John, I'll post it there too.  The chemical lobby is just as bad as the fossil fuel lobby.

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[chubbs]

8 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Another chart in Hanson's latest. Since 2010 max warming has shifted from arctic to mid-latitude in the NHemi (and to lesser extent in SHemi). Consistent with warm winters we have had recently.

[Evie3]

I'm not qualified to discuss the data with the rest of you, but as a rank amateur I just watched this and it blew my mind.  It's over an hour long, but I thought it might be of interest.  https://rumble.com/v4kl0dn-climate-the-movie-the-cold-truth-martin-durkin.html

[donsutherland1]

12 hours ago, Evie3 said:

I'm not qualified to discuss the data with the rest of you, but as a rank amateur I just watched this and it blew my mind.  It's over an hour long, but I thought it might be of interest.  https://rumble.com/v4kl0dn-climate-the-movie-the-cold-truth-martin-durkin.html

Unfortunately, the film lacks scientific merit. It makes numerous claims that run counter to scientific understanding ranging from the basics of the greenhouse effect (which has been understood since the 19th century) to warming being an artifact of the urban heat island (UHI effect--UHI is real, but rural locations have been warming, too). The impact of adding greenhouse gases to the Earth System is a matter of physics, not politics. The Earth Energy Imbalance that has resulted is driving warming, as incoming solar radiation exceeds outgoing longwave radiation.

The geological record provides further illustrations of the role CO2 has played in amplifying the warming, even as past triggers for increasing atmospheric CO2 were natural. It makes no difference whether CO2 is released through volcanic activity or from the burning of fossil fuels. The effects are the same given the well-understood properties of the gas. There remain some questions about whether sensitivity to increasing CO2 also ramps up at some point. Recent research suggests that it does on account of a decrease in low- and medium-level cloud cover at the mid- and high-latitudes, allowing more incoming solar radiation to reach the surface than would otherwise be the case.

Not surprisingly, summing up the body of research, science journalist Peter Brannen observed, "...our current experiment--quickly injecting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere--has in fact been run many times before in the geological past, and it never ends well."

The warming is just one problem. Most of the CO2 is absorbed by the oceans leading to acidification. The combination of acidification and warming reduces oxygen (even as sea life needs more oxygen to deal with warmer temperatures), which can create food chain die-offs. Recent bleaching events of corals off Florida and Australia are early symptoms of what could become a much bigger problem if the issue is not addressed in a sufficient and timely matter. And what happens in the sea doesn't stay in the sea. A substantial loss of sea life would be felt by human society. There would be no quick fixes.

In the end, the film trivializes what is a major issue with profound consequences. It seeks to delay societal action by injecting disinformation into the public sphere. The costs of a delayed response could be magnitudes of order greater than those associated with earlier efforts to address the problem.

[bdgwx]

That video is grossly incorrect. No need for me to rehash the problems since @donsutherland1 already did.

I do want to provide some commentary on the UHI though since it is one of the most grossly misrepresented concepts in the contrarian blogosphere. 

UHI Effect - This is the real phenomenon where urban areas are systematically warmer than rural areas. This is due to both land use changes that decrease albedo and to a lesser extent waste heat. The effect is always positive. Because it is real it should be included in global average temperature datasets. It often isn't included because removing it is an easy way to mitigate the UHI Bias (different concept described below) and because its not that significant anyway so its removal does not substantially bias the global average temperature trend. The effect was recently quantified by Dr. Spencer (a climate change "skeptic") as adding only about 0.03 C to the global average temperature.

UHI Bias - This is a non-real phenomenon where urban/rural stations are used as proxies for the rural/urban areas. This is due to the methodological choices made in regards to gridding, infilling, and spatially averaging the data. For example, if you have a grid cell that is 50/50 urban/rural, but your station mix is 90/10 urban/rural then you are biasing that grid cell. What contrarians get totally wrong is that they assume the bias is always positive like the effect. This isn't true at all though. Consider that same 50/50 urban/rural grid cell where the station mix starts out 90/10 urban/rural but then overtime the station mix goes to 50/50. If that transition from 90/10 to 50/50 occurs after urbanization has peaked (like is often the case post WWII) then you actually bias that grid cell low. Berkeley Earth concluded that the net effect of the UHI Bias is statistically equivalent to zero, but if anything it is actually negative after 1950. [Wickham et al. 2013] That's worth repeating...the UHI Bias (not the UHI Effect) is more likely to be negative and bias their dataset too low than it is to be positive and bias their dataset too high.

 

[ChescoWx]

Here in Chester County PA this March was the 19th warmest average temp on record. . Four of the top 5 warmest March months were all before 1950 in rank order 51.7 (1945) / 51.4 (1921) / 50.0 (2012) / 49.1 (1946) / 48.1 (1903). Of note look how the National Center of Environmental Information (NCEI) chilled the average temperatures pre-1950 with post hoc cooling adjustments to mute the warmth we saw in those decades. 1945 Actual 51.7 - adjusted 49.6 / 1921 Actual 51.4 - adjusted 49.7 / 1946 actual 49.1 - adjusted 47.3 and 1903 actual 48.1 after adjustment 46.8. Interestingly not one available individual reporting station reported a number as low as these post hoc averages in any of these months.

[ChescoWx]

On 3/31/2024 at 11:00 AM, Evie3 said:

I'm not qualified to discuss the data with the rest of you, but as a rank amateur I just watched this and it blew my mind.  It's over an hour long, but I thought it might be of interest.  https://rumble.com/v4kl0dn-climate-the-movie-the-cold-truth-martin-durkin.html

The climate alarmists will tell you this lacks scientific merit even though many scientist supported these facts. They will tell you this is "settled" science....the truth is science is never settled and we do NOT have anywhere close to consensus. While AGW is of course real it certainly does not mean that AGW is a crisis or we are in any sort of "climate emergency". These two things can both be true. Do alarmist ever show empirical evidence to prove to us that extreme weather is worse now than it was 50 years ago? 200 yrs ago??  They will say well “experts say” or “science says.” or our model says....we want to see actual real world unadjusted climate data - where is the emergency? Oh and what exactly is the correct temperature of earth??

[ChescoWx]

OHN CLAUSER, 2022 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: "I can very confidently assert, there is NO climate emergency." “As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is NOT in peril. … atmospheric CO2 and methane have negligible effect on the climate. The policies government have been implementing are total unnecessary and should be eliminated. So far, [we] have totally misidentified what is the dominant process in controlling the climate, and all of the various models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics. The dominant process, is “the cloud-sunlight-reflexivity thermostat mechanism. Clouds are all bright white, and they reflected 90% of the sunlight back into space making them the most crucial yet most overlooked aspect of the climate system. Two-thirds of the Earth are ocean. The Pacific Ocean alone is half the Earth. The average cloud cover for the Earth is 67%; about 50% over land and 75% over oceans. I claim that the above conspicuous properties of clouds are the missing part of the puzzle.

[AdMC]

How come if I ignore the user @ChescoWxit still shows his posts? Any ideas on how to block this ignorance?

[ChescoWx]

18 hours ago, AdMC said:

How come if I ignore the user @ChescoWxit still shows his posts? Any ideas on how to block this ignorance?

As always with alarmists like AdMc....just call him a name and cancel opposing views....swell!!

[AdMC]

5 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

As always with alarmists like AdMc....just call him a name and cancel opposing views....swell!!

Hey you are free to spout whatever you want - this is a public forum. And I am free to filter out what I deem as nonsense. It is not personal. Carry on good sir, as I have said during the past few years - the debate is not worth having any more.