July 2024 – The Tarbabys Blog

Russia vs Ukraine: the biggest war of the fake news era

Reuters

Russia vs Ukraine: the biggest war of the fake news era

Max Hunder – July 31, 2024

KHARKIV, Ukraine (Reuters) – In early April, some residents of Kharkiv received a series of chilling text messages from government officials telling them to flee the city before Russian forces surrounded it.

“Due to the threat of enemy encirclement, we urge the civilian population of Kharkiv leave the city by April 22,” said one alert, which bore the logo of the State Emergencies Service of Ukraine and mapped out safe escape routes on a slick infographic.

It was fake. Volodymyr Tymoshko knew immediately. He’s the police chief of Kharkiv region and would have been one of the first to find out about any official evacuation plans.

“Residents started getting these notifications en masse,” the 50-year-old told Reuters as he shared a screenshot of the alert, sent as Russian troops were massing at the border 30 km away.

“This is a psychological operation, it triggers panic. What would an average citizen think when they receive such a message?”

Disinformation and propaganda, long mainstays of war, have been digitally supercharged in the battle for Ukraine, the biggest conflict the world has seen since the advent of smartphones and social media.

Tymoshko said he received about 10 similar messages via SMS and Telegram messenger in April and early May, the weeks leading up to Russia’s offensive in northeastern Ukraine that began on May 10 and opened up a new front in the war.

A Ukrainian security official, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said the Russians frequently sent large numbers of text messages from devices attached to an Orlan-10 long-range reconnaissance drone which can penetrate dozens of kilometres into Ukrainian airspace.

The devices, known as Leer-3 systems, imitate cellular base stations that phones automatically connect to in search of coverage, he added.

The phone barrage was accompanied by a social media blitz as Russian troops advanced on Kharkiv, according Andriy Kovalenko, head of Ukraine’s Centre for Countering Disinformation (CCD), a branch of the national security council.

The average number of social media posts classed as disinformation about the war by Ukrainian authorities spiked to over 2,500 a day when the Kharkiv offensive began in May, up from 200 a day in March, data compiled by the CCD shows.

The CCD chief told Reuters that Ukrainian intelligence had assessed that disinformation campaigns were primarily carried out by Russia’s FSB security service and military intelligence agency, commonly known as the GRU.

Russia’s foreign ministry and the FSB didn’t respond to a request for comment on the Ukrainian assertions, while Reuters was unable to contact the GRU.

Moscow has accused Ukraine and the West of unleashing a sophisticated information war against Russia, using the West’s major media, public relations and technology assets to sow false and biased narratives about Russia and the war.

The Ukrainian security official acknowledged his country used online campaigns in an attempt to boost anti-war sentiment among Russia’s population, although he characterised this effort as “strategic communications” to spread accurate information about the conflict.

BOTS AND MICROTARGETING

Reuters interviewed nine people with knowledge of the information and disinformation war being waged in parallel with battlefield operations, including Ukrainian officials, disinformation trackers and security analysts.

The Ukrainian security official who requested anonymity said that since the full-scale invasion of 2022, intelligence agencies had shut down 86 Russian bot farms located in Ukraine which controlled a collective 3 million social media accounts with an estimated audience reach of 12 million people.

Such facilities are rooms filled with banks of specialised computing equipment that can register hundreds of fake accounts daily on social media networks to pump out false information, the official added, citing one farm that was found by security services in the city of Vinnytsia in central Ukraine last year.

Kovalenko said that at present, the most significant sources of online Russian disinformation were TikTok in Ukraine and Telegram in Europe. Both are widely used in Ukraine.

He said that earlier this year, TikTok had shut down about 30 of the 90 accounts that Ukraine had flagged as Russia-affiliated disinformation spreaders, adding that new accounts often popped up to replace those taken down.

TikTok told Reuters its guidelines prohibited false or misleading content, adding that it had closed down 13 covert influence networks operating from Russia in recent years.

“We prohibit and constantly work to disrupt attempts to engage in covert influence operations by manipulating our platform and/or harmfully misleading our community,” a spokesperson said.

Disinformation networks are groups of accounts controlled by the same entity, and often used to push a coordinated narrative.

Telegram said it was developing a tool to add verified information to posts.

“It is Telegram’s belief that the best way to combat misinformation is not with censorship but with easy access to verified information,” a spokesperson added.

Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov told Reuters that the Russians were trying to sow panic and distrust, citing an example of social media posts claiming the main road to Kyiv was being resurfaced so that the mayor could flee faster when the Russians came – something he dismissed as a lie.

“They are trying to frighten the population so that people feel uncomfortable and leave the city,” he said in an interview in Kharkiv in late May.

By that time, the frontlines of the conflict in the northeast had stabilised about 20 km from the edge of the city after the Russian offensive had initially gained territory to the north before being blunted by Ukrainian reinforcements.

Maria Avdeeva, a Kharkiv-based security analyst who focuses on Russian disinformation, showed Reuters an infographic map, bearing Ukraine’s state emblem of a trident, posted on Facebook in early April – around the same time as police chief Tymoshko was sent a different evacuation map in a direct Telegram message.

Unperturbed by a loud explosion from a glide bomb a few kilometres away, she explained how the map and accompanying text included fake road closures and claims that missile strikes were expected in specified areas around the city soon.

Microtargeting – which analyses people’s online data to target particular individuals and audiences with specific messages, much like targeted advertising – is complicating the CCD’s task of tracking influence campaigns and countering false narratives, Kovalenko said.

“This activity is notably very tactical,” said John Hultquist, chief analyst at U.S. cybersecurity firm Mandiant, referring to Russian disinformation campaigns in Ukraine.

“We’ve seen targeting all the way down to the Ukrainian soldiers in the trenches.”

AIRSTRIKE TAKES OUT TV TOWER

Ukrainians are particularly vulnerable to digital disinformation; more than three-quarters of the population get their news from social media, far more than any other source of information, according to a study commissioned by USAid in 2023.

That is considerably higher than in any of the 24 European countries surveyed by a 2024 Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism report, which averaged a rate of 44%.

In late April, as Moscow’s forces massed on the border near Kharkiv, a Russian airstrike took out Kharkiv’s main television tower, hindering the city’s access to information.

Dramatic footage obtained by Reuters showed the main mast of the television tower breaking off and falling to the ground.

While the Kharkiv offensive led to a significant spike in disinformation activity, there have been similar Russian campaigns over the course of the war, according to the people interviewed.

The head of the CCD highlighted a Russian campaign in October 2023 aimed at driving home the idea that Ukraine was facing a tough winter and defeat in the war.

Osavul, a Ukrainian disinformation tracking company, showed Reuters its data for this campaign, which it called “black winter”. It counted 914 messages posted by 549 actors which collectively received nearly 25 million views.

Nonetheless, according to Kovalenko, the sheer scale and frequency of Russian influence operations meant Ukrainians were becoming more suspicious of the information they receive, blunting their impact.

The disinformation push during Russia’s initial advance towards Kharkiv at the start of the invasion in 2022 – when they got much closer to the city – contributed to the panic and shock that led to hundreds of thousands of residents fleeing, several officials and experts said.

This time around, only a small number left Kharkiv, even though the amount of disinformation messaging aimed at the city was double the level in March 2022, according to CCD data.

Despite the near-daily missiles and bombs falling on the city – attacks that intensified this May – 1.3 million people remain, according to Kharkiv Mayor Terekhov, roughly the same as before Russia’s latest military incursion in the region.

The comparative lack of panic also reflects Ukrainians’ increasing familiarity with living under attack.

Reuters spoke to nearly two dozen Kharkiv residents in the second half of May, when the city was being hit by several bombs or missiles a day.

Most said they felt no desire to leave and shrugged off the danger, saying they had become used to it. Several said they had stopped following the news.

“This is a psychological mechanism, we get used to danger,” Kharkiv-based psychologist Iryna Markevych said.

In late May, Reuters correspondents dived to the ground for cover when they heard the whistle of a guided bomb piercing the air. Seemingly unfazed, mothers with pushchairs continued to stroll through the park and people bathed at a public fountain.

Yulia Oleshko, 55, a nanny pushing a buggy in a central Kharkiv park, said the best way to get through the nightmare was to simply focus on getting on with everyday life.

“Yesterday I was thinking: walking around Kharkiv is walking around a minefield … but I try not to dwell on these thoughts of fear, otherwise one might fall into depression,” she said.

“We abstract ourselves, otherwise we won’t survive.”

(Reporting by Max Hunder; Editing by Mike Collett-White and Pravin Char)

Mediterranean heatwave ‘virtually impossible’ without climate change: scientists

AFP

Mediterranean heatwave ‘virtually impossible’ without climate change: scientists

AFP – July 31, 2024

Scientists from the World Weather Attribution group say the heatwave that hit countries around the Mediterranean in July would have been up to 3.3 degrees Celsius cooler in a world without climate change (FADEL SENNA)

The punishing heat experienced around the Mediterranean in July would have been “virtually impossible” in a world without global warming, a group of climate scientists said Wednesday.

A deadly heatwave brought temperatures well above 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) to southern Europe and North Africa, where such extreme summer spells are becoming more frequent.

Scorching heat claimed more than 20 lives in a single day in Morocco, fanned wildfires in Greece and the Balkans, and strained athletes competing across France in the Summer Olympic Games.

World Weather Attribution, a network of scientists who have pioneered peer-reviewed methods for assessing the possible role of climate change in specific extreme events, said this case was clear.

“The extreme temperatures reached in July would have been virtually impossible if humans had not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels,” according to the WWA report by five researchers.

The analysis looked at the average July temperature and focused on a region that included Morocco, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece.

Scientists used this and other climate data to assess how the heat in July compared to similar periods in a world before humanity began rapidly burning oil, coal and gas.

They concluded the heat recorded in Europe was up to 3.3C hotter because of climate change.

Beyond the Mediterranean, intense heat reached Paris this week where athletes competing in the Olympic Games withered as temperatures hit the mid-30s this week.

“Extremely hot July months are no longer rare events,” said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London, a co-author of the study.

“In today’s climate… Julys with extreme heat can be expected about once a decade,” she said.

Scientists have long established that climate change is driving extreme weather and making heatwaves longer, hotter and more frequent.

This latest episode came in a month when global temperatures soared to their highest levels on record, with the four hottest days ever observed by scientists etched into the history books in July.

The past 13 months have been the warmest such period on record, exceeding a 1.5C limit that scientists say must be kept intact over the long term to avoid catastrophic climate change.

As Republicans Attack Harris on Immigration, Here’s What Her Record Shows

The New York Times

As Republicans Attack Harris on Immigration, Here’s What Her Record Shows

Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Jazmine Ulloa – July 31, 2024

Robert Rivas, speaker of the California Assembly, in Hollister, Calif., on July 25, 2024, who is backing Vice President Kamala HarrisÕs presidential campaign even though in 2021 he helped draft a statement that opposed her comments on immigration.(Nic Coury/The New York Times)

WASHINGTON — As they seek effective attack lines against Vice President Kamala Harris, Republicans are focusing on her role in the Biden administration’s border and immigration policies, seeking to blame her for the surge of migrants into the United States over the past several years.

A review of her involvement in the issue shows a more nuanced record.

President Joe Biden did not assign her the job title of “border czar” or the responsibility of overseeing the enforcement policies at the U.S.-Mexico border, as the Trump campaign suggested Tuesday in its first ad against her. But she did have a prominent role in trying to ensure that a record surge of global migration did not become worse.

After the number of migrants crossing the southern border hit record levels at times during the administration’s first three years, crossings have now dropped to their lowest levels since Biden and Harris took office.

Her early efforts at handling her role and the administration’s policies were widely panned, even by some Democrats, as clumsy and counterproductive, especially in displaying defensiveness over why she had not visited the border. Some of her allies felt she had been handed a no-win portfolio.

Early in the administration, Harris was given a role that came to be defined as a combination of chief fundraiser and conduit between business leaders and the economies of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Her attempt to convince companies across the world to invest in Central America and create jobs for would-be migrants had some success, according to immigration experts and current and former government officials.

But those successes only underlined the scale of the gulf in economic opportunity between the United States and Central America, and how policies to narrow that gulf could take years or even generations to show results.

Rather than develop ways to turn away or detain migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, Harris’ work included encouraging a Japan-based auto parts plant, Yazaki, to build a $10 million plant in a western Guatemalan region that sees high rates of migration and pushing a Swiss-based coffee company to increase procurement by more than $100 million in a region rich with coffee beans.

She convened leaders from dozens of companies, helping to raise more than $5 billion in private and public funds.

“Not a huge amount, but it ain’t chicken feed and that links to jobs,” said Mark Schneider, who worked with Latin American and Caribbean nations as a senior official at the U.S. Agency for International Development during the Clinton administration.

Jonathan Fantini-Porter, the chief executive of the Partnership for Central America, the public-private partnership Harris helped lead, said the money had led to 30,000 jobs, with another 60,000 on the way as factories are constructed.

She also pushed Central American governments to work with the United States to create a program where refugees could apply for protection within the region.

Still, some of Harris’ critics said her focus on the “Northern Triangle” countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador was a mistake.

Most migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border during the Obama and Trump administrations did come from those countries. But as migration from that region stabilized during the Biden administration, it exploded from countries such as Haiti, Venezuela and Cuba.

The Northern Triangle countries accounted for roughly 500,700 of the 2.5 million crossings at the southwest border in the fiscal year of 2023, a 36% drop from the 2021 fiscal year, according to the Wilson Center.

“They didn’t care to do a good diagnosis of the issue, and they have just focused on a very small part of the topic,” said Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a political science professor at George Mason University who has studied Latin American relations and their impact on migration. Correa-Cabrera said Harris had “failed completely” in her mission by following an outdated approach to tackling the root causes of migration.

Biden had a similar portfolio to Harris’ when he was vice president. He was in charge of addressing the economic problems in Central America by rallying hundreds of millions of dollars of aid for a region where the United States has a complicated legacy.

After helping fuel violent civil wars in the 1980s, the United States retreated before seeing peace reforms through, a move that partly set the stage for the corrupt politicians and criminal groups who would exploit the countries’ lack of economic opportunities, overwhelm regional police forces and eventually spur hundreds of thousands of migrants — many of them unaccompanied minors — to make the dangerous trek north.

But U.S. foreign aid initiatives have not always worked to deter migration. Over the years, some investments have been mismanaged and prioritized training programs over actual jobs that would keep would-be migrants in their home countries. Former President Donald Trump froze the foreign aid programs in 2019.

When Biden gave Harris the assignment to look into the root causes of migration, some of her allies worried she was being set up to fail. During her first trip to Guatemala City in 2021, she faced outrage from progressives and immigration advocates when she delivered a blunt message to migrants: “Do not come.”

Republicans criticized her when she brushed aside questions about why she had not yet visited the border.

“I’ve never been to Europe,” Harris said during an NBC News interview with Lester Holt. “I don’t understand the point you’re making.”

Her staffers aggressively sought to distance the vice president from the rising number of crossings at the border — a top concern for voters of both parties.

Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, who worked with Biden when he had the assignment as vice president, said her task was inherently connected to the record numbers of crossings at the border, even though he agreed she was not a “border czar” in charge of enforcement.

“I think she was supposed to be looking at the diplomatic root issues,” said Cuellar, who signed a resolution proposed by House Republicans criticizing Harris’ work on migration. “But again, you can’t talk about what happens in Central America without coming to the border itself. The focus is the border.”

“I think she did try to distance herself from that,” Cuellar added.

Ricardo Zúñiga, who served as State Department’s special envoy for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, said Harris was essential in bringing together Latin American and American business leaders to drive investment in Central America.

Less than a week into her role, Zúñiga recalled, Harris sat with members of the national security team and economists from the Treasury Department. After a round of introductions, she quickly got into probing the personalities of the Latin American leaders with whom she would be interacting.

Zúñiga said he later watched her put the information she had collected into practice. In Mexico City, she connected with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador by expressing interest in the artwork at his presidential palace.

In Guatemala, she took a much more direct approach to President Alejandro Giammattei. She warned him last year about attempts to disrupt the handover of power of the newly elected president, Bernardo Arévalo, while also pushing him to help form programs that migrants could use to apply for refuge in the United States closer to their home countries.

“She was curious and asked many questions,” Zúñiga said. “She very quickly realized that we weren’t going to solve 500 years of problematic history in a single term.”

On Tuesday, Harris tried to hit back against Trump’s attacks. During a campaign rally in Georgia, she highlighted his effort to tank legislation that had bipartisan support that would have curbed illegal immigration. “Donald Trump,” she said, “has been talking a big game about securing our border. But he does not walk the walk.”

Cancer rates in millennials, Gen X-ers have risen starkly in recent years, study finds. Experts have 1 prime suspect.

Yahoo! Life

Cancer rates in millennials, Gen X-ers have risen starkly in recent years, study finds. Experts have 1 prime suspect.

Natalie Rahhal, Health and Wellness Writer – July 31, 2024

Rates of 17 cancers have been rising among each generation since the baby boomers, new research suggests. (Getty Images) — Rates of 17 cancers have been rising among each generation since the baby boomers, with more young people being diagnosed below age 50 than in the past, new research suggests. (Getty Images)

Experts are sounding the alarm as rates of 17 types of cancer in millennials and Gen X-ers have risen dramatically in recent years, a new study shows. For certain cancers, people born in 1990 face two-to-three times the risks that those born in 1955 did, according to the research published in the journal Lancet Public Health. The findings echo the recent worrying rise in young people developing colorectal cancer, but add more forms of the disease to the list of concerns.

It’s too soon to say what is driving the increase in what experts call “early onset” cancers, but they warn that it’s not just due to better screening; people are dying of these diseases at rates and ages not seen in their parents’ generations.

Here’s what to know about the generational risk of cancer and what you can do to reduce yours.

What did the new study find?

Researchers with the American Cancer Society (ACS) assessed rates of 34 different cancers among those born between 1920 and 1990, based on how many were diagnosed with or died of the disease from 2000 to 2019.

On average, the rates of 17 types of cancer, including pancreatic, breast and gastric cancer, have risen with each new generation since 1920, the study found. Previous ACS research had shown that rates of 11 cancers, including pancreatic, colorectal, kidney, uterine and testicular cancer, had been increasing among young adults. The new study added eight more types of cancer to that list:

Gastric cardia cancer (a cancer of the stomach lining)
Cancer of the small intestine
Estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer
Ovarian cancer
Liver and bile duct cancer
Non-HPV-associated oral and pharynx cancer (only in women)
Anal cancer (only in men)
Kaposi sarcoma (a cancer of the blood vessel lining and lymph nodes, only in men)

Rates doubled or even tripled for some of these cancers, including kidney, pancreatic and small intestine cancers, in people of either gender. For women, liver cancer incidence has increased two- to threefold since the 1920s. Even cancers that seemed to be in decline for baby boomers and other older generations — including some breast cancers and testicular cancer — are now a greater risk again to millennials and Gen X-ers, the study found.

More young people are dying of some of these cancers as well; mortality from colorectal, gallbladder, testicular and uterine cancers has increased over the generations, as has the fatality rate of liver cancer, but only for women. “That really stood out because the concurrent increase in mortality [and diagnoses] suggests that what we see is not just an artifact due to potentially more frequent screening and diagnosis,” lead study author and senior principal scientist of surveillance and health equity science with ACS, Hyuna Sung, tells Yahoo Life. “Instead, it indicates a genuine increase in risk, with the increases in incidence sufficient to outpace improvements” in diagnostics and treatment.

Why is this happening?

While the new study doesn’t answer why this is happening, Sung and other experts have a prime suspect in their sights: obesity. Ten out of 17 of the cancers that are becoming more common over the generations have been linked to obesity, the study authors noted.

Research to suss out exactly how obesity might contribute to or cause cancer is ongoing, but there are some leading theories, Timothy Rebbeck, professor of cancer prevention at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, tells Yahoo Life. “When someone is obese, a lot of things change in the body, including chronic inflammation that leads to years and years worth of damage to cells and tissues in the body, which can lead to cancer,” he explains.

According to the MD Anderson Cancer Center, it may not be a person’s body mass index (BMI) directly; rather changes to insulin sensitivity and an increase in certain hormones might fuel out-of-control cell growth and, in turn, lead to cancer.

Coinciding rises in obesity and cancer rates, especially among young adults, suggest that the problem may begin in childhood or perhaps even before people are born, says Rebbeck. “That process of damage to your cells is starting earlier and earlier, so if there’s a 20-year lag from this obesity exposure and it starts at age 10, it’s in your 30s or 40s when cancer risk arises,” he hypothesizes. The timelines also suggest there may be other early life environmental exposures, including factors like antibiotic use or diet that may alter your gut bacteria, which may influence a person’s cancer risk.

What you can do to reduce your risks

While the findings are alarming, experts say not to worry too much. Here’s why: “Cancers diagnosed before age 50 are still relatively rare,” Rebbeck says. Only about 350 out of every 100,000 cases of cancer diagnosed each year are found in people between ages 45 and 49, according to the National Cancer Institute. “It’s not something that people need to start panicking about … but we want people to be informed and start doing things that might have an impact,” says Rebbeck.

That just means making straightforward changes to live the healthiest lifestyle you can and reduce your cancer risks, experts say, by doing your best to maintain a healthy body weight, exercising regularly, eating a balanced diet low in ultra-processed foods and red meat and high in plants and fish like salmon, drinking minimally and not smoking. “None of these things are easy, but they are the things we can recommend,” Rebbeck says.

It’s also important to know your family history and see a health care provider if you notice any changes that could be early warning signs of cancer. For young people, there are “unique symptoms” of some cancers, such as colorectal cancers, including “fatigue, rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, altered bowel habits, or unexplained weight loss, which are really considered red flags for early onset cancer,” says Sung.

China reveals nuclear energy breakthrough with world’s first ‘meltdown-proof’ plant — here’s how it could change the future of nuclear power

The Cool Down

China reveals nuclear energy breakthrough with world’s first ‘meltdown-proof’ plant — here’s how it could change the future of nuclear power

Jeremiah Budin – July 30, 2024

Researchers in China have developed the world’s first meltdown-proof nuclear power plant, The Independent reported.

Nuclear power is one clean alternative to dirty energy sources such as gas, oil, and coal — all of which produce massive amounts of planet-overheating air pollution. However, the development of more nuclear power plants has been hampered by public fear of catastrophic nuclear-plant meltdowns such as the widely known meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

While disasters like these are rare, they are still a real concern, which makes China’s new meltdown-proof plant potentially exciting for the future of clean energy.

The researchers from Tsinghua University used several new methods to create the plant, which relies on a “pebble-bed reactor” to virtually eliminate the possibility of a meltdown. The reactor is cooled by helium instead of water and uses highly heat-resistant billiard-ball-sized graphite spheres filled with tiny uranium fuel particles in place of large fuel rods.

While the pebble-bed design cannot be retroactively applied to new nuclear power plants, it could serve as a blueprint for future plants, the scientists explained.

While wind and solar tend to garner more headlines as clean energy sources that can replace dirty energy, nuclear power also has an important role to play. One of the main challenges of replacing dirty energy lies in generating enough clean energy to meet demand, so diversifying and relying on a wider variety of sources makes a lot of sense.

In Wyoming, another nuclear power plant is being built on the site of a retired coal plant — that one also bills itself as being virtually meltdown-proof, by using liquid sodium as a coolant instead of water.

In addition, researchers have discovered a way to make nuclear power plants safer by getting water to boil off and evaporate at a lower temperature. Although nuclear power is already safer than many people believe, these discoveries and inventions are making it safer than ever for future generations.

New research suggests major change in China’s air pollution may have kick-started bizarre effects: ‘It will give us surprises’

The Cool Down

New research suggests major change in China’s air pollution may have kick-started bizarre effects: ‘It will give us surprises’

Leo Collis – July 30, 2024

In the global battle against harmful air pollution, China is both a leader in production and reduction.

According to the 2023 Global Carbon Budget, shared by Our World in Data, the country was responsible for annual carbon dioxide pollution of over nine billion tons from coal in 2022. The next highest polluter, India, was responsible for two billion.

However, government controls on dirty fuel industries have resulted in a 70% reduction in aerosol emissions over the last 10 years, as Yale Environment 360 detailed.

It’s a slightly confusing state of affairs. What’s more confusing, though, is how that aerosol reduction has impacted ocean warming.

What’s happening?

According to analysis published by PNAS and shared by Yale Environment 360, improvements made in reducing air pollution by China have led to warming effects in the Pacific Ocean.

The decline in smog particles has offered less shading protection from the sun’s rays, which has increased the rate of ocean warming and set off a chain reaction of atmospheric events.

Watch now: Climate expert explains why there’s ‘no question’ human activity causes global temperature changes

As Yale Environment 360 detailed, aerosols can deter around a third of the warming that’s caused by greenhouse gases — which are different from aerosols as they trap heat rather than shade it.

Why is ocean warming concerning?

Since 2013, the Pacific Ocean has been witnessing a warming event known as “The Blob,” which periodically increases water temperatures between California and Alaska by as much as seven degrees Fahrenheit.

This has led to toxic algal blooms, reductions of fish stocks, sea lion displacement, and the forcing of whales into shipping lanes in the hunt for food, among other issues, according to Yale Environment 360.

The analysis suggests that the aerosol reduction in China is at least partly responsible for “The Blob.” Despite these negative effects, cutting the production of aerosol is still an important factor in curbing overall air pollution.

“Aerosol reductions will perturb the climate system in ways we have not experienced before,” atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University Yangyang Xu, who was not involved in the study, told Yale Environment 360. “It will give us surprises.”

What can be done about rising ocean temperatures?

As Fred Pearce of Yale Environment 360 noted: “To be clear, nobody — but nobody — suggests that we should stop the cleanup of aerosols. The death toll would just be too great.”

The World Health Organization says that outdoor air pollution was responsible for 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide in 2019, and aerosols are a key contributor to that statistic.

With that in mind, Michael Diamond from Florida State University, an expert on aerosols and climate, has suggested that reducing methane immediately would mitigate against the warming created in the absence of aerosols.

According to NASA, around 60% of the world’s methane pollution is caused by human activities. Agriculture, landfills, and burning dirty energy are among the leading producers of this harmful gas, which is 28 times more potent in terms of planet-warming potential than carbon dioxide.

So, cutting our consumption of meat and dairy, keeping as many items from heading to landfills as possible, and ramping up the production of electricity from renewable sources are essential to keep methane levels down. If we can do that, we can offset the unusual heating effects that cleaning up aerosols is having on our oceans without compromising human health.

Wisconsin Republicans ask voters to take away governor’s power to spend federal money

Associated Press

Wisconsin Republicans ask voters to take away governor’s power to spend federal money

Scott Bauer – July 28, 2024

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers speaks before President Joe Biden at a campaign rally at Sherman Middle School in Madison, Wis., Friday, July 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

Wisconsin Republicans are asking voters to take away the governor’s power to unilaterally spend federal money, a reaction to the billions of dollars that flowed into the state during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers was free to spend most of that money as he pleased, directing most of it toward small businesses and economic development, angering Republicans who argued the Legislature should have oversight.

That’s what would happen under a pair of related constitutional amendments up for voter approval in the Aug. 13 primary election. The changes would apply to Evers and all future governors and cover any federal money to the state that comes without specific spending requirements, often in response to disasters or other emergencies.

Democrats and other opponents are mobilizing against the amendments, calling them a legislative power grab that would hamstring governors’ ability to quickly respond to a future natural disaster, economic crisis or health emergency.

If the amendments pass, Wisconsin’s government “will become even more dysfunctional,” said Julie Keown-Bomar, executive director of Wisconsin Farmers Union.

“Wisconsinites are so weary of riding the partisan crazy train, but it is crucial that we show up at the polls and vote ‘no’ on these changes as they will only make us go further off the rails,” she said in a statement.

But Republicans and other backers say it’s a necessary check on the governor’s current power, which they say is too broad.

The changes increase “accountability, efficiency, and transparency,” Republican state Sen. Howard Marklein, a co-sponsor of the initiative, said at a legislative hearing.

The two questions, which were proposed as a single amendment and then separated on the ballot, passed the GOP-controlled Legislature twice as required by law. Voter approval is needed before they would be added to the state constitution. The governor has no veto power over constitutional amendments.

Early, in-person absentee voting for the Aug. 13 election begins Tuesday across the state and goes through Aug. 11. Locations and times for early voting vary.

Wisconsin Republicans have increasingly turned to voters to approve constitutional amendments as a way to get around Evers’ vetoes. Midway through his second term, Evers has vetoed more bills than any governor in Wisconsin history.

In April, voters approved amendments to bar the use of private money to run elections and reaffirm that only election officials can work the polls. In November, an amendment on the ballot seeks to clarify that only U.S. citizens can vote in local elections.

Republicans put this question on the August primary ballot, the first time a constitutional amendment has been placed in that election where turnout is much lower than in November.

The effort to curb the governor’s spending power also comes amid ongoing fights between Republicans and Evers over the extent of legislative authority. Evers in July won a case in the Wisconsin Supreme Court that challenged the power the GOP-controlled Legislature’s budget committee had over conservation program spending.

Wisconsin governors were given the power to decide how to spend federal money by the Legislature in 1931, during the Great Depression, according to a report from the Legislative Reference Bureau.

“Times have changed and the influx of federal dollars calls for a different approach,” Republican Rep. Robert Wittke, who sponsored the amendment, said at a public hearing.

It was a power that was questioned during the Great Recession in 2008, another time when the state received a large influx of federal aid.

But calls for change intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic when the federal government handed Wisconsin $5.7 billion in aid between March 2020 and June 2022 in federal coronavirus relief. Only $1.1 billion came with restrictions on how it could be spent.

Most of the money was used for small business and local government recovery grants, buying emergency health supplies and paying health care providers to offset the costs of the pandemic.

Republicans pushed for more oversight, but Evers vetoed a GOP bill in 2021 that would have required the governor to submit a plan to the Legislature’s budget committee for approval.

Republican increased the pressure for change following the release of a nonpartisan audit in 2022 that found Evers wasn’t transparent about how he decided where to direct the money.

One amendment specifies the Legislature can’t delegate its power to decide how money is spent. The second prohibits the governor from spending federal money without legislative approval.

If approved, the Legislature could pass rules governing how federal money would be handled. That would give them the ability to change the rules based on who is serving as governor or the purpose of the federal money.

For example, the Legislature could allow governors to spend disaster relief money with no approval, but require that other money go before lawmakers first.

Opposing the measures are voting rights groups, the Wisconsin Democratic Party and a host of other liberal organizations, including those who fought to overturn Republican-drawn legislative maps, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Faith Voices for Justice.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business lobbying group, and the Badger Institute, a conservative think tank, were the only groups that registered in support in the Legislature.

Scientists make ‘incredibly worrying’ discovery after observing pattern in one of Earth’s largest ice fields: ‘We risk irreversible, complete removal of them’

The Cool Down

Scientists make ‘incredibly worrying’ discovery after observing pattern in one of Earth’s largest ice fields: ‘We risk irreversible, complete removal of them’

Leslie Sattler – July 28, 2024

Alaska’s Juneau Icefield is melting at an alarming rate, doubling its pace of decline in recent decades.

This vast expanse of interconnected glaciers is shrinking faster than ever before, according to The New York Times, raising what it said scientists called “incredibly worrying” concerns about the future of our planet’s ice.

What’s happening?

The Juneau Icefield lost 1.4 cubic miles of ice annually between 2010 and 2020, according to a recent study published in the journal Nature Communications. That’s twice the rate of melting observed before 2010.

Since the late 18th century, this massive ice field has shed a quarter of its volume, with the most dramatic losses occurring in recent years.

Bethan Davies, who led the research, gave a stark statement to the New York Times: “If we reduce carbon, then we have more hope of retaining these wonderful ice masses. The more carbon we put in, the more we risk irreversible, complete removal of them.”

Why is the melting Juneau Icefield concerning?

The rapid melting of this Alaskan ice field is a clear sign that our planet is overheating.

Watch now: Famed climber Alex Honnold reveals what’s inside his refrigerator

As the ice disappears, it affects more than just the local landscape. Here’s why this matters to all of us:

Sea level rise: Melting glaciers contribute to rising sea levels, threatening coastal communities worldwide.

Climate feedback loop: As ice melts, it exposes darker land beneath, which absorbs more heat and accelerates warming.

Fresh water supply: Glaciers act as natural reservoirs, providing fresh water for ecosystems and human communities.

Wildlife impact: Many species depend on these icy habitats for survival.

The changes in the Juneau Icefield serve as a stark reminder of the urgent need to address our planet’s overheating. By taking action now, we can help protect these vital ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.

What’s being done about the Juneau Icefield?

While the situation is serious, there’s still hope. Scientists, policymakers, and laypeople are working together to slow the melt.

For example, studies like this one help us understand the problem and develop targeted solutions. International efforts, such as the Paris Agreement, aim to limit planetary heating and protect vulnerable areas. And many communities are switching to renewable energy sources to reduce carbon pollution.

You can make a difference, too, with actions big and small. The most important thing you can do is get educated about topics like this and use your voice to help steer public sentiment and beyond, however you feel.

By making these small changes in our daily lives, we can contribute to a cooler future for our planet. Remember, every action counts when it comes to preserving our planet’s incredible ice fields and the vital role they play in our global ecosystem.

The election has been totally upended. Here’s what the polls show.

Politico

The election has been totally upended. Here’s what the polls show.

Steven Shepard – July 27, 2024

The polls are in after a chaotic few weeks in the 2024 presidential election, and they point to a newly hyper-competitive race.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ elevation has jolted the race and blunted the momentum former President Donald Trump could have seen coming out of the Republican convention and the assassination attempt that preceded it. Though polling showed Trump building a lead over President Joe Biden following their debate last month, that advantage has mostly evaporated against Harris in the fresh round of surveys conducted since she became the all-but-certain Democratic nominee.

The new polling shows just how much the landscape has shifted since Biden dropped out last Sunday. For months, the contest appeared set, and Biden’s modest deficit going into the debate threatened to decline further. That’s now changed.

Trump still maintains a slim edge over Harris — but the race is now close, which was not the case for the Biden-vs.-Trump contest after the debate. Just this week, new polls from The New York Times/Siena College (Trump +1 over Harris), The Wall Street Journal (Trump +2) and CNN (Trump +3) all represent tightening from 6-point Trump leads in all three polls following the debate.

Looking only at the horserace, it’s difficult to evaluate whether opinions of Trump shifted after the assassination attempt, or whether he received a bounce out of the GOP convention and his selection of Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate

But look deeper, and one can see some signs that Trump is viewed differently now than he was before the assassination attempt. Similarly, the crosstabs show how Harris has closed the gap with the Republican nominee, performing stronger with traditionally Democratic groups among whom Biden had lagged badly.

Here are five takeaways from the latest numbers:

Harris has started to rebuild a more traditional Democratic coalition

A switch in the Democratic candidate has rippled through the electorate and, at least initially, restored traditional demographic patterns.

Even before his debate debacle, Biden had struggled to keep key elements of the Democratic base in the fold: Support had eroded significantly among young voters, Black voters, Latino voters and other reliable supporters of Democratic candidates in the past, including Biden in 2020.

Harris has brought some of those voters back into the fold. In the New York Times/Siena poll, for example, she is running stronger than Biden has all year among young voters and voters of color while mostly keeping pace with Biden among older and white voters, where his numbers had been more durable.

That doesn’t mean Trump’s gains have entirely disappeared in a matter of days now that he’s running against a 59-year-old woman of color instead of an 81-year-old white man. Harris is still short of Biden’s 2020 numbers among young voters and voters of color, and the former president is still running well ahead of his 2016 and 2020 numbers among those groups.

Harris has more paths to 270 electoral votes than Biden did

As she shifts the electorate, Harris is creating more potential pathways to the White House.

For Biden, the election was looking like Rust Belt or bust. But Harris’ stronger numbers among Black and Latino voters could translate to better prospects in some of the Sun Belt states where he had fallen well behind Trump: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina.

Biden’s campaign was still actively contesting those states, but his deficits in public polling had been significant even before the debate. There’s very little polling so far in the Sun Belt swing states, but the changes taking place in the national polling suggest Harris could put those states back into play.

Biden was still in the ballgame, at least before the debate, in the “Blue Wall” states that were competitive and decisive in both 2016 and 2020. And a set of new Fox News polls out Friday show Harris and Trump neck-and-neck in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

And polls in states with similar demographic profiles also suggest Harris is inching closer to Biden’s winning 2020 numbers — and not toward the devastating, landslide loss that some Democrats had feared if Biden had stayed in the race after the debate. A Fox News poll in Minnesota showed Harris 6 points ahead of Trump, similar to Biden’s 7-point win. Two polls in New Hampshire this week gave the vice president leads that essentially matched Biden four years ago. Trump allies had argued in recent weeks that those states were among a slew of blue-leaning states that had been put in play.

Harris seems to be shutting that down. She has work to do to catch up to Trump, but she already has more options than Biden did.

Trump is more popular than at any point in the last four years

While Harris’ takeover of the news cycle may have blunted any Trump bump in the horserace polling after the assassination attempt and last week’s convention, there’s still evidence of one in the former president’s favorability ratings.

In poll after poll, Trump has notched favorable ratings at or near his highest ever recorded.

It’s not a terribly high bar: Even when he won the 2016 election, more voters have consistently said they view Trump unfavorably than view him favorably — he’s had some electoral success despite his image. Trump’s still underwater, but his image rating is a lot closer to 50-50 than it has been at virtually any time in his political career.

In the Wall Street Journal poll, his favorable/unfavorable rating was 47 percent/50 percent. That’s a significant shift: In nine previous polls dating back to November 2021, the percentage of voters with an unfavorable opinion of Trump had always been at least 10 points higher than the percentage who viewed him favorably.

Some of Trump’s numbers in the early weeks of the pandemic rival his current standing. But by this time four years ago, his image had declined. And in all that’s happened since then, it hadn’t recovered — until now.

Biden’s retirement is wildly popular

In this era of polarization, it’s hard to imagine that Biden and his 39-percent approval rating could do anything that would be almost unanimously popular.

But his decision to pull the plug on his moribund campaign is well received across the political spectrum.

More than three-in-four likely voters in the New York Times/Siena poll said they were enthusiastic or satisfied that Biden had dropped out. The numbers were similar in the Fox News state polls, including in Pennsylvania, where 78 percent of voters said they approved of Biden dropping out.

Biden’s decision is earning bipartisan praise: Large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents support him stepping aside. But, ironically, it’s Democratic voters who are more enthusiastic about it. Significantly more Democratic voters than GOP voters in the Fox News Pennsylvania poll, 86 percent versus 69 percent, approve of Biden dropping out, despite Republicans’ general antipathy toward the president.

RFK Jr. is in freefall

With Trump’s post-convention bounce, Democrats’ candidate switch and his own missteps, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s numbers are dropping like a rock.

In the New York Times/Siena poll, Kennedy was at 5 percent, down from 8 percent right after the Biden-Trump debate. He’s at 4 percent in the Wall Street Journal poll, down from 7 percent in the previous poll.

Kennedy cried foul last month when he fell short of CNN’s criteria for a debate invitation: He earned 15 percent in three polls (needing four) and was well shy of the cable network’s threshold for ballot access (Kennedy argued it was unfair, since many states don’t certify independent candidates until later in the year).

And now, even as he’s gotten on the ballot in more states, it appears that the polling threshold for the next debate will be his undoing. He needs to earn 15 percent in four qualifying polls from Aug. 1-Sept. 3 to be able to compete in the ABC News debate on Sept. 10, and he’s nowhere near that right now.

Kennedy and various third-party candidates have been courting the significant share of voters who viewed both Biden and Trump unfavorably. But these so-called double haters are increasingly rare now, thanks to improved views of Trump and Harris’ stronger image than Biden.

Those developments might not last: Trump could fall back to his consistently poor image, and Harris’ honeymoon with the public could be short-lived, especially in the face of nascent Republican attacks.

But, for now, more voters like at least one of the candidates, and fewer say they’ll be holding their noses in November. After months of careening toward a dismal rematch of 2020, the election has been abruptly upended, and there is a lot more uncertainty about its trajectory from here. Right now, at the outset of the Harris-Trump contest, it looks like a close race.

Russia’s Putin vows ‘mirror measures’ in response to U.S. missiles in Germany

Associated Press

Russia’s Putin vows ‘mirror measures’ in response to U.S. missiles in Germany

The Associated Press – July 28, 2024

Russian President Vladimir Putin greets sailors prior to the main naval parade marking Russian Navy Day in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Sunday, July 28, 2024. (Vyacheslav Prokofyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, second left, and Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Alexander Moiseyev, left, arrive to watch the main naval parade marking Russian Navy Day in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Sunday, July 28, 2024. (AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky, Pool)

Russian President Vladimir Putin, center, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, second right, and Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Alexander Moiseyev, right, greet sailors prior to the main naval parade marking Russian Navy Day in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Sunday, July 28, 2024. (Vyacheslav Prokofyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

Russia may deploy new strike weapons in response to the planned U.S. stationing of longer-range and hypersonic missiles in Germany, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday.

Speaking at a naval parade in St Petersburg, Putin vowed “mirror measures” after the U.S. earlier this month announced that it will start deploying the weapons in 2026, to affirm its commitment to NATO and European defense following Moscow’s all-out invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

“If the U.S. implements such plans, we will consider ourselves free from the previously imposed unilateral moratorium on the deployment of intermediate and shorter-range strike weapons, including increasing the capability of the coastal forces of our navy,” Putin said. He added that Moscow’s development of suitable systems is “in its final stage.”

Both Washington and Moscow have in recent weeks signaled readiness to deploy intermediate-range ground-based weapons that were banned for decades under a 1987 U.S.-Soviet treaty. The U.S. pulled out of the agreement in 2019, accusing Moscow of conducting missile tests that violated it.

The allegations, which Russia denied, came as tensions mounted between Moscow and the West in the wake of the downing of a Malaysian airliner carrying 298 people over war-torn eastern Ukraine. Two Russians and a pro-Moscow Ukrainian were ultimately convicted over their role in the attack.

Washington and Berlin said in a joint statement this month that the U.S. weapons to be placed in Germany would ultimately include SM-6 missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and “developmental hypersonic weapons”, including those with a significantly longer range than the ones currently deployed across Europe.

Most of Russia’s missile systems are capable of carrying either conventional or nuclear warheads. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said last week that the Kremlin did not rule out new deployments of nuclear missiles in response to the U.S. move.

Ryabkov added that defending Kaliningrad, Russia’s heavily militarized exclave wedged between NATO members Poland and Lithuania, was of particular concern.