[TheClimate.Vote] November 23, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu Nov 23 09:49:09 EST 2017
/November 23, 2017/
*Defense Bill Passes with Climate Change and National Security Provision
<https://climateandsecurity.org/2017/11/22/defense-bill-passes-with-climate-change-and-national-security-provision/>*
Every year since 1961, the U.S. Congress has passed the National Defense
Authorization Act
<https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings-and-legislation/ndaa-national-defense-authorization-act>
- or the NDAA, as it's known in acronym-obsessed Washington. The bill
essentially determines which agencies are responsible for defense,
establishes funding levels, and sets policies under which money will be
spent. Last week, the U.S. Congress passed the FY2018 NDAA
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-change-is-a-direct-threat-to-national-security-the-defense-bill-says-and-trump-is-expected-to-sign-it/article/2641507>,
and sent it to the President for signature. He is expected to promptly
sign it. Interestingly, this year's NDAA, among many other things, says
something loud and clear about climate change: there is a bipartisan
majority in Congress that accepts climate change is a "direct threat" to
national security, and that the Department of Defense (DoD) must have
the authority to prepare for it.
In response, John Conger
<https://climateandsecurity.org/advisory-board/john-conger/>, Senior
Policy Advisor with the Center for Climate and Security, noted in an
interview
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-change-is-a-direct-threat-to-national-security-the-defense-bill-says-and-trump-is-expected-to-sign-it/article/2641507>
with the Washington Examiner:
Lawmakers have shifted from being a headwind on climate change as a
national security issue to being a tailwind, said John Conger, a
senior policy adviser with the Center for Climate and Security.
Changing climate is a "direct threat" to U.S. national security,
endangering 128 military bases with sea rise and global
destabilization that could fuel terror groups, according to the
NDAA, which is a bipartisan compromise struck by the House and Senate.
The bill orders a Pentagon report on the top 10 at-risk bases and
what should be done to protect them…
The language on climate change, almost certain to become law, is a
sign that under the new Republican administration, Congress is
moving toward more acceptance of the phenomenon being a serious
security issue, and that the military will continue efforts to
assess and plan for the risks...
"The military's goal is to be pragmatic and apolitical.
Beyond the political significance of the bill, the climate and security
provision is also a step forward in terms of substance, particularly as
it relates to adapting the nation's military infrastructure to a
changing climate. As Conger states
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-change-is-a-direct-threat-to-national-security-the-defense-bill-says-and-trump-is-expected-to-sign-it/article/2641507>:
"the new NDAA report is a shift because it requires the military to say
how it will shore up the at-risk bases and what the cost may be."
In short, climate change is a matter of national security, and the U.S.
military has to deal with it. It is heartening to see the nation's
policy-makers warming up (pun intended) to that reality.
https://climateandsecurity.org/2017/11/22/defense-bill-passes-with-climate-change-and-national-security-provision/
*
**KXL Federal Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss <https://www.sierraclub.org/>*
*Federal Lawsuit Challenging Keystone XL Approval Will Move Forward*
Court Stops Trump Administration From Flouting Environmental Laws
Great Falls, MT -- [Wednesday] a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit
brought by environmental and landowner groups over the Trump
administration's approval of the cross-border permit for the Keystone XL
tar sands pipeline can proceed. The decision rejects attempts by the
administration and TransCanada, the company behind the proposed
pipeline, to have the lawsuit thrown out.
The lawsuit was filed in March by the Northern Plains Resource Council,
Bold Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth,
Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club. It challenged
the U.S. Department of State's and other agencies' inadequate and
outdated environmental review of the pipeline, which relied on a dated
environmental impact statement from January 2014 and failed to consider
key information on the project's impacts. In motions filed in June, the
administration and TransCanada argued that, in approving the pipeline,
the administration was not required to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Endangered Species Act (ESA), two
of America's bedrock environmental laws. In its ruling today, the court
rejected the administration's argument that presidential authority bars
judicial review of the approvals...
"Once again, the courts are serving as a critical backstop against this
administration's attempts to flout the law for the benefit of corporate
polluters," said Sierra Club Senior Attorney Doug Hayes. "The American
people will not stand by as the administration tries to bypass critical
environmental laws that exist to protect our land and our clean water.
Keystone XL is a threat to our land, water, wildlife, and climate, and
we will continue fighting, in the courts and in the streets, to ensure
that it is never built."
"This is a key step toward holding the Trump administration accountable
for recklessly approving this dirty and incredibly dangerous pipeline,"
said Jared Margolis, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological
Diversity. "Keystone would be a catastrophe for endangered wildlife and
our climate, and we'll keep fighting until it's dead and buried."
https://www.sierraclub.org/
*Debunking Climate Change Myths: A Thanksgiving Conversation Guide
<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112017/thanksgiving-family-climate-denial-global-warming-science-answers>*
We asked our readers to share the top climate denial claims and global
warming questions they hear from family. Here's what science shows - and
how to explain it.
Some of the misinformation that creeps into the doubters' discussions
are the lingering leftovers of years of deliberate peddling of
misinformation
<https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty>,
often by fossil fuel interests.
Some of it persists because, face it, not everybody is well versed in
the scientific consensus, which is based on multiple streams of evidence
from dozens of specialized disciplines. Who can keep up?
Even those who are thankful this year for the work of the United States
Global Change Research Program, which just published an update of the
latest science
<https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/front-matter-about/>, may
not have studied all the details.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112017/thanksgiving-family-climate-denial-global-warming-science-answers
-
*Tamino*
*Thanksgiving Dinner: How to Talk to "Drunk Uncle"
<https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/11/22/thanksgiving-dinner-how-to-talk-to-drunk-uncle/>*
Posted on November 22, 2017
We've been there, most of us. Thanksgiving dinner, lots of family
including many you don't see very often, and at some point somebody says
something so terrible, you feel like you have to respond. Maybe it's
about global warming, and you're a young climate activist (thank you!).
Here's my advice.
*#1: You Don't Have To*
I was at Thanksgiving dinner at my wife's parents' house, along with her
brother, sisters, spouses, kids, and grampa. Grampa is not a bad guy -
he was in his 90s by then, and was a WWII veteran (fought in Patton's
army). Like many families at Thanksgiving, we decided to watch a
football game. Like most, it begins with the singing of the national
anthem. The singer is a black woman. That's when grampa complains,
because, he says, everybody knows "black women can't sing."
I felt two instincts: one, to laugh out loud in the most derisive
fashion; two, to scream "Aretha!!!" at the top of my lungs (if you don't
know who Aretha is, google it - it's worth finding out). Fortunatey, my
sister-in-law simply said, "Oh grampy, you're so silly!" Situation
defused, useless argument avoided.
Maybe you're a young climate activist, your mom and dad are climate
activists, your brother is a poli-sci major focusing on climate issues
and your sister is a grad student studying climate science. Only "drunk
uncle" doesn't get it - so you don't have to respond. A simple, "Oh
uncle, you're so silly!" is probably best. Let your family enjoy
Thanksgiving in peace.
*#2: Be Polite and Respectful, and Stay Calm*
There's an old saying, that when you argue with an idiot nobody can tell
who's the idiot. That's even more true for a shouting-match. If,
however, drunk uncle is loud, obnoxious, and abusive while you are calm,
rational, and polite, it helps avoid strife at the dinner table and it
makes your claims so much more persuasive. You might not think so at the
time, but it does.
There's also the fact that Thanksgiving is not about climate change.
It's about family. Maybe you really do "need" to respond, not to let
things go unchallenged, but you don't have to be angry.
Staying calm is perhaps most important. Never forget that one of the
ways climate deniers get their way is to make you lose control. Stay in
control.
*#3: Be Honest*
Totally honest. Don't make up stuff. Don't claim what you don't know.
Always remember that a perfectly good answer to a question is: "I don't
know."
*#4: Know Your Audience*
When you respond to something provocative from "drunk uncle," be aware
that you aren't talking for him. To him, maybe, but not for him. You're
talking for the other people. Your 11-year-old cousin who is genuinely
afraid of climate change. Your other cousin, who's not sure. Your aunt
who thinks it's a Chinese plot. These are the people you might actually
influence - not drunk uncle.
Are they conservatives? Instead of talking about being eco-friendly to
mother earth, talk about the economy - that man-made climate change is
already making it harder. Talk about national security, how global
warming is a severe threat according to, oh, how about the pentagon and
the military?
Are they liberal? Instead of talking national security, talk about how
it will impact the poor most of all. And yes, feel free to sing the
praises of taking care of mother earth.
Are they evangelical Christians? Mention that God himself told us to
take good care of his garden. We might have "dominion" over the earth,
but that only means we're caretakers, not owners. It's God's earth, not
ours.
*#5: Know Your Facts*
How much has planet Earth warmed since 1900? (About 1.1°C = 2°F). What's
the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere? (About 407 ppm=parts per
million). How fast is it rising? (About 2.5 ppm/year). What's the
scientific consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and
dangerous? (About 97%). When drunk uncle spouts nonsense, and you have
the facts and figures at your fingertips, you win.
You don't have to learn it all. But the more you know, the more
persuasive you'll be. Learn it ahead of time; nothing makes you look
more "out-of-control" than leaving the table to google the facts.
*#6: Give Hope*
It's easy to talk about what we can't do, what we can't avoid. That
turns people off. Talk about what we can do. Talk about the benefits of
renewable energy - both climate-wise and economic. This is especially
true if your 11-year-old cousin is so afraid she cries about her future.
SHE needs hope … show her you're not going to let her down.
*#7: It's the simple things that take your breath away*
I was at a diner having breakfast with my wife. It wasn't crowded at
all, but at the next table was a man talking loudly about how the new
tax bill to fund education was just more of the "take my hard-earned
money" liberal nonsense. Rather than argue, all I said (just loud enough
to be heard) was this:
Mark Twain said, "Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a
jail."
The effect was miraculous. Suddenly the complainer wanted more funding
for education! You had to be there to believe how effective it was. And
there was no angry argument.
That kind of saying isn't easy to find (unless you're Mark Twain). But
when you find one, use it.
*#8: Know When to Quit*
Let drunk uncle be the one who won't shut up about the subject. Keep it
short, keep it to the point, and when you've made your point, stop. It's
way more effective. And don't forget, Thanksgiving dinner is about the
love of family.
There's my advice. I hope it serves you well.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/11/22/thanksgiving-dinner-how-to-talk-to-drunk-uncle/
-
*How to talk to someone who doesn't believe in climate change
<https://ideas.ted.com/how-to-talk-to-someone-who-doesnt-believe-in-climate-change/>*
Nov 15, 2017 / Daryl Chen
Not every conversation with a climate denier has to lead to raised
voices and hurt feelings. Here's how to do it constructively.
"Climate change has become one of the taboo topics - like sex, politics
and religion - that doesn't get talked about at the Thanksgiving table,"
says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication. "In fact, most of us are willing and even interested to
discuss it, but their perception is other people don't want to."
So go ahead and engage with the uncle who insists the weather's always
been changing and it has nothing to do with us. Or the cousin who can't
make up her mind about anything - whether global warming is real or not,
whether it's serious or not, or whether it's human-caused or not.
Here's some advice to guide you.
*1. Tailor your argument to them; don't just use the one that worked on
you...*
*2. Tell them what worries you about climate change...*
*3. Appeal to their basic values - not yours...*
*4. Encourage climate-friendly acts that match what's most important to
them...*
*5. Accept small steps in the right direction.*
You may be hoping your relative leaves your conversation, fully
converted in heart and mind. But when did you ever do a 180 on a major
issue after a single chat?
So even if you'd rather they skipped their weekly steak because they
want to reduce the methane emitted by cows, get over it. You're still
nudging them towards choices that will help combat global warming.
And though these changes may be small, they could be the first steps in
a bigger transformation.
https://ideas.ted.com/how-to-talk-to-someone-who-doesnt-believe-in-climate-change/
-
*This holiday season, instead of picking your battles, pick your
battlefield
<http://grist.org/article/this-holiday-season-instead-of-picking-your-battles-pick-your-battlefield/>**
*By Eve Andrews on Nov 21, 2017
Common etiquette dictates that political conversation is not appropriate
for family dinners. Much has been said and written since the election
about the best solution for the hyper-polarized political situation. And
it boils down to: People who love and respect each other need to engage
one another in political discussion, even - especially - if they
disagree. In other words, etiquette is bad!
I talked to several people with politically diverse families about how
they approached that issue at Thanksgiving 2016. They almost entirely
opted to simply make nice, remain quiet, and try to keep from imploding.
But now, a year later,...
This is their advice.
One-on-one is more effective than a large holiday dinner.
Neil, 35, is a Texas native and conservative-turned-liberal - "I voted
for Bush in 2000," he whispers conspiratorially to me over the phone -
who now works on energy efficiency in Dallas.
In the couple of weeks between the 2016 election and Thanksgiving, Neil
was a volatile mess, as he's currently being reminded by Facebook's most
evil feature, "A year ago today…." One day it serves up a weepy status
update, the next, some half-hearted attempt to counteract the pervasive
negativity and bitterness of his social circles. Every fresh Trump
speech or quote, however, convinced him that there was little to be
optimistic about....
However, over the course of the year, he's found that he's been able to
make some headway in private, one-on-one conversations with his in-laws.
The key, he says, is focusing on issues that matter to them -
conservation, education, the energy grid - rather than the current
tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
It's not always easy - there's a frequent sensation of "beating one's
head against the wall" - and he often feels exhausted or discouraged
talking with committed conservatives. But it's certainly yielded more
meaningful conversation than in a potentially overwhelming, all-family
setting. Neil says he's been able to meaningfully discuss how the
actions of the Trump administration - particularly in his cabinet
nominations - have gone against the intentions and values of his
relatives who voted for them.
Be realistic. If you know your family can't be swayed, save your mental
strength and find a coping mechanism.
"There's nothing I can say that will change their mind," she explains.
"They think about this issue as preserving family land, preserving it in
a way where your kids can still make a living off of it."
"You have to find strength deep down inside to ignore it. It sounds
counterproductive, and ignoring is not what progressive people do at
all," Elena tells me. "But if you want to continue to have that family,
there has to be some compromise of your principles and values."..
The bigotry of the Trump administration is exactly what pushes Michael,
30, who lives in Pennsylvania, to keep trying to engage people in
conversation.
Trump's inauguration was on his daughter's first birthday. "She lives in
a white conservative area, and she's black - she looks black," he says.
"Trump just encourages racism and emboldens racists, and I have to
figure out how to explain that to her."
What Michael found hardest about the election was worrying about what
his daughter's future would look like as a result of a Trump presidency.
"That's my whole thought process: How can I reverse anything that that
idiot does?"
But his anxiety over Trump's effect on his daughter will not be taking
place at family gatherings with the white, conservative relatives of his
ex-girlfriend (his daughter's mother)."She doesn't spend any time with
family members who are conservative," he explains "I forbid it, and her
mom and I agree on that. We don't want our daughter to feel like she
doesn't fit in or have to feel that kind of hostility low-key."..
"We had the same concerns: our families, good jobs," he remembers about
his fellow patrons. "If you bond with people on that part of it and then
realize we're humans and what we agree on, it's easier to talk to people."
Michael says that those conversations are even more necessary today as
many people who voted for Trump may be starting to feel embarrassed and
frustrated by his presidency - especially as we approach the midterm
elections.
To be effective (and cordial!), meaningful political conversations with
those around you have to start well before voting season - and since
Thanksgiving falls right after elections, it's about as far from the
next voting season as you can get. But you have to set realistic
boundaries. You have to know when, and where, and how those
conversations should take place. A holiday table could be an apt scene
for nuanced discussion, or it could lead to screaming, tears, hurled
pies, and even more stubbornly entrenched political stances. Every
family is different - unhappy in its own way!
*My advice to you this Thanksgiving is simply: Read the room*. The
difficult conversations do have to happen, but they shouldn't happen in
the most difficult of settings.
http://grist.org/article/this-holiday-season-instead-of-picking-your-battles-pick-your-battlefield/
*Are we headed for near-term human extinction?
<https://nowtoronto.com/news/are-we-headed-for-near-term-human-extinction/>*
Recent studies suggest it is irresponsible to rule out the possibility
after last week's "warning to humanity" from more than 15,000 climate
change scientists
BY ZACH RUITER NOVEMBER 22, 2017
A "warning to humanity"
<https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229>raising
the spectre "of potentially catastrophic climate change... from burning
fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural production – particularly
from farming ruminants for meat consumption," was published in the
journal BioScience last week.
More than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries endorsed the caution,
which comes on the 25th anniversary of a letter released by the Union of
Concerned Scientists in 1992, advising that "a great change in our
stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human
misery is to be avoided."
A quarter century on, what gets lost in the dichotomy between climate
change believers and deniers is that inaction and avoidance in our daily
lives are forms of denial, too.
And what most of us are collectively denying is the mounting evidence
that points to a worst-case scenario unfolding of near-term human
extinction.
*Exponential climate change*
In 2015, 195 countries signed theParis Climate Agreement
<https://nowtoronto.com/news/cop21%E2%80%93-the-morning-after/>to limit
the rise in global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius to avoid
dangerous climate change. But none of the major industrialized countries
that signed the agreement are currently on track to meet the non-binding
targets. The Trump administration has indicated the United States will
withdraw from the agreement entirely.
In July, a study in the peer-reviewed journal,Proceedings Of The
National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America
<http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089>, claimed "biological
annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction" is underway. And
that "all signs point to ever more powerful assaults on biodiversity in
the next two decades, painting a dismal picture of the future of life,
including human life," the study states.
According to scientists, the majority of previous mass extinctions in
the geologic record were characterized by abrupt warming between 6 to 7
degrees Celsius.As recently as 2009
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/sep/28/met-office-study-global-warming>,
British government scientists warned of a possible catastrophic 4
degrees Celsius global temperature increase by 2060.
AsHoward Lee wrote in the Guardian
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/01/underground-magma-triggered-earths-worst-mass-extinction-with-greenhouse-gases>in
August, "Geologically fast build-up of greenhouse gas linked to warming,
rising sea-levels, widespread oxygen-starved ocean dead zones and ocean
acidification are fairly consistent across the mass extinction events,
and those same symptoms are happening today as a result of human-driven
climate change."
Runaway climate change is non-linear. Shifts can be exponential, abrupt
and massive due to climate change "feedbacks," which can amplify and
diminish the effects of climate change. Here are five you need to know
about:
*1. Climate lag *
Temperature increaseslag by about a decade
<http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002>,
according toNASA's Earth Observatory
<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HeatBucket/heatbucket4.php>.
"Just as a speeding car can take some time to stop after the driver hits
the brakes, the earth's climate systems may take a while to reflect the
change in its energy balance."
According to a NASA-led study released in July 2016, "Almost one-fifth
of the global warming that has occurred in the past 150 years has been
missed by historical records due to quirks in how temperatures were
recorded."
Adding the climate lag to the current level of global temperature
increase would take us past the 2 degree Paris Agreement climate target
within a decade.
*2. Ice-free Arctic*
Dr. Peter Wadhams of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge
Universitytold The Independent
<http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-could-become-ice-free-for-first-time-in-more-than-100000-years-claims-leading-scientist-a7065781.html>more
than a year ago that the central part of the Arctic and the North Pole
could be ice-free within one to two years.
Not only will melting Arctic sea ice raise global sea levels, it will
also allow the earth to absorb more heat from the sun because
icereflects the sun's rays
<http://e360.yale.edu/features/as_arctic_ocean_ice_disappears_global_climate_impacts_intensify_wadhams>while
blue open water absorbs it.
One study in the Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The
United States Of America estimates the extra heat absorbed by the dark
waters of the Arctic in summer wouldadd the equivalent of another 25 per
cent<http://scripps.ucsd.edu/biblio/observational-determination-albedo-decrease-caused-vanishing-arctic-sea-ice>to
global greenhouse gas emissions.
*3. The 50 gigaton methane "burp"*
Dr. Natalia Shakhova, of the University of Alaska Fairbanks'
International Arctic Research Center has warned that a 50-gigaton burp,
or "pulse," of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East
Siberian Arctic Shelf is"highly possible at any time."
<http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/39957-release-of-arctic-methane-may-be-apocalyptic-study-warns>
Methane is a greenhouse gas much more potent than carbon dioxide. A 50
gigaton burp would be the equivalent of roughly two-thirds of the total
carbon dioxide released since the beginning of the industrial era.
*4. Accelerated ocean acidification*
The world's oceans are carbon sinks that sequester a third of the carbon
dioxide released into the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide emitted in
addition to that which is produced naturally has changed the chemistry
of seawater. The carbon in the oceans converts into carbonic acid, which
lowers pH levels and makes the water acidic.
As of 2010, the global population of phytoplankton, the microscopic
organisms that form the basis of the ocean's food web, hasfallen by
about 40 per cent since 1950
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/>.
Phytoplankton also absorb carbon dioxide and produce half of the world's
oxygen output.
The accelerating loss of ocean biodiversity and continued overfishing
may result in acollapse of all species of wild seafood by 2048
<http://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/schillerstation/pdfs/AR-024.pdf>,
according to a 2006 study published in the journal Science.
*5. From global warming to global dimming*
The Canadian government recently announced plans to phase out coal-fired
electricity generation by 2030. But at the same time as warming the
planet, pollution from coal power plants, airplanes and other sources of
industrial soot, aerosols and sulfates are artificially cooling the
planet by filling the atmosphere with reflective particles, a process
known as global dimming.
Airplanes, for example, release condensation trails (or contrails) that
form cloud cover that reflects the sun. The effects of global dimming
are best evidenced by a 2 degree Celsius temperature increase in North
America after all commercial flights were grounded for three days
following the attacks of 9/11.
*The take-away*
Out of control climate change means feedback mechanisms may accelerate
beyond any capacity of human control. The occurrences discussed in this
article are five of some 60 known weather-related phenomenon, which can
lead to what climate scientist James Hansen has termed the "Venus
Syndrome," where oceans would boil and the surface temperature of earth
could reach 462 degrees Celsius. Along the way humans could expect to
die in resource wars, starvation due to food systems collapse or lethal
heat exposure.
Given all that remains unknown and what is at stake with climate change,
is it irresponsible to rule out the possibility of human extinction in
the coming decades or sooner?
https://nowtoronto.com/news/are-we-headed-for-near-term-human-extinction/
*Species may appear deceptively resilient to climate change
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171122093039.htm>*
Ecological air conditioning offers short-term protection from a warming
climate
Natural habitats play a vital role in helping other plants and animals
resist heat stresses ramping up with climate change -- at least until
the species they depend on to form those habitats become imperiled...
Habitat More Important Than Latitude for Some
The study adds to the understanding of how different species respond to
climate change. Scientists have observed some plants and animals under
climate change are leaving lower latitudes for cooler ones. But this
study shows that, for some species, habitat is more important than
latitude in protecting them from the effects of climate change.
"If you're an octopus living in a mussel bed, the most important thing
to keep your body temperature survivable is that mussel bed around you,
not whether you live in Southern California, where it's warmer, or
Washington," Jurgens said.
The study also reinforces the benefits of habitat conservation. It
indicates that destroying habitat can reduce climate resilience, while
restoring and conserving habitat can help maintain biodiversity as the
climate warms.
"People are really big compared to most organisms on the planet,"
Jurgens said. "We're enormous, and it's hard for us to understand what
it's like to be in these habitats unless you imagine yourself in a place
like a forest you walk into on a hot day. If that temperature is what
you need to survive, that forest better be there."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171122093039.htm
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/us/climate-change-threatens-to-strip-the-identity-of-glacier-national-park.html?mwrsm=Email>*This
Day in Climate History November 23, 2014
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/us/climate-change-threatens-to-strip-the-identity-of-glacier-national-park.html?mwrsm=Email>
- from D.R. Tucker*
November 23, 2014: The New York Times reports:
"A warming climate is melting [Glacier National Park's] glaciers, an
icy retreat that promises to change not just tourists' vistas, but
also the mountains and everything around them.
"Streams fed by snowmelt are reaching peak spring flows weeks earlier
than in the past, and low summer flows weeks before they used to. Some
farmers who depend on irrigation in the parched days of late summer
are no longer sure that enough water will be there. Bull trout, once
pan-fried over anglers' campfires, are now caught and released to
protect a population that is shrinking as water temperatures rise."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/us/climate-change-threatens-to-strip-the-identity-of-glacier-national-park.html?mwrsm=Email
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
Send email to subscribe <a%20href=%22mailto:contact at theClimate.Vote%22>
to this mailing. /
*** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
carries no images which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20171123/adb38191/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list