[TheClimate.Vote] April 12, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu Apr 12 10:00:19 EDT 2018
/April 12, 2018/
[we suspected this years ago]
*The oceans' circulation hasn't been this sluggish in 1,000 years.
That's bad news.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/11/the-oceans-circulation-hasnt-been-this-sluggish-in-1000-years-thats-bad-news/>*
Chris Mooney April, 11, 2018
The ocean current North America and Europe depend on is slowing down,
and climate change may be to blame
The Atlantic Ocean circulation that carries warmth into the Northern
Hemisphere's high latitudes is slowing down because of climate change, a
team of scientists asserted Wednesday, suggesting one of the most feared
consequences is already coming to pass.
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has declined in strength
by 15 percent since the mid-20th century to a "new record low," the
scientists conclude in a peer-reviewed study published in the journal
Nature <http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0006-5>.
That's a decrease of 3 million cubic meters of water per second, the
equivalent of nearly 15 Amazon rivers.
The AMOC brings warm water from the equator up toward the Atlantic's
northern reaches and cold water back down through the deep ocean. The
current is partly why Western Europe enjoys temperate weather, and
meteorologists are linking changes in North Atlantic Ocean temperatures
to recent summer heat waves....
- - - - -
The AMOC circulation is just one part of a far larger global system of
ocean currents, driven by differences in the temperature and salinity of
ocean water. Warm surface waters flow northward in the Atlantic,
eventually cooling and - because cold, salty water is very dense - sink
and travel back southward at great depths. The circulation has thus been
likened to a conveyor belt....
- - - - - - -
As for the future, Rahmstorf predicts the circulation will only weaken
further as climate change advances. It may not be slow and steady: There
is great fear that there may be a "tipping point" where the circulation
comes to an abrupt halt.
This is one of the most infamous scenarios for abrupt climate change, as
it is known: Studies from the planet's history suggest that such a
sudden change in the North Atlantic has occurred many times in Earth's
past, perhaps as recently as about 13,000 years ago. But it's not clear
how close the tipping point might be.
"I think in the long run … Greenland will start melting even faster, so
I think the long-term prospect for that ocean circulation system is that
it will weaken further," Rahmstorf said. "And I think that's going to
affect all of us, basically, in a negative way."
more at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/11/the-oceans-circulation-hasnt-been-this-sluggish-in-1000-years-thats-bad-news/
- - - - - -
[here it is]
*Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning
circulation
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0006-5.epdf?referrer_access_token=v2scMiZHCJ9jR9lGr0qjm9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OdzeJ18XkImxSDnyYEEsE8kZxiCFQRHXUDVk7z88DZuCVSpNT526jCYc7AolNWO0q1VuAzrHmqVEhSpPio75PuDkbmnZMCM7UNkijPz7lF85lllre35b36xIR2bFKP-N8KD_GUVf7qEKH5RpZgKimkm5eaGY-9_iwbrfmXiiwSKC-h6dYZT5WJkAU7Qi4h8o_8yfGCnteJjUPRVV4rc19oLjmhua0qUJhEChUDiojei-RMbkQSmZbabDCxg6PYZ5OkXhWJN837QcRYGCrYCO9VseoCyzep0GSv6KpZT8xiIdlNe3jN9ba0yu9koCseRziv86ZKF8bYxuhRSDQkj3Rrg5FhShaBImNCh8s-J0LAGdIRNlFwYDfbzVMLwS_thiqq3TVthLoyN2gfK5WLDC9D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com>*
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC)-a system of ocean
currents in the North Atlantic-has a major impact on climate, yet its
evolution during the industrial era is poorly known owing to a lack of
direct current measurements.
*Read the study:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0006-5.epdf?referrer_access_token=v2scMiZHCJ9jR9lGr0qjm9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OdzeJ18XkImxSDnyYEEsE8kZxiCFQRHXUDVk7z88DZuCVSpNT526jCYc7AolNWO0q1VuAzrHmqVEhSpPio75PuDkbmnZMCM7UNkijPz7lF85lllre35b36xIR2bFKP-N8KD_GUVf7qEKH5RpZgKimkm5eaGY-9_iwbrfmXiiwSKC-h6dYZT5WJkAU7Qi4h8o_8yfGCnteJjUPRVV4rc19oLjmhua0qUJhEChUDiojei-RMbkQSmZbabDCxg6PYZ5OkXhWJN837QcRYGCrYCO9VseoCyzep0GSv6KpZT8xiIdlNe3jN9ba0yu9koCseRziv86ZKF8bYxuhRSDQkj3Rrg5FhShaBImNCh8s-J0LAGdIRNlFwYDfbzVMLwS_thiqq3TVthLoyN2gfK5WLDC9D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com>*
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0006-5.epdf?referrer_access_token=v2scMiZHCJ9jR9lGr0qjm9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OdzeJ18XkImxSDnyYEEsE8kZxiCFQRHXUDVk7z88DZuCVSpNT526jCYc7AolNWO0q1VuAzrHmqVEhSpPio75PuDkbmnZMCM7UNkijPz7lF85lllre35b36xIR2bFKP-N8KD_GUVf7qEKH5RpZgKimkm5eaGY-9_iwbrfmXiiwSKC-h6dYZT5WJkAU7Qi4h8o_8yfGCnteJjUPRVV4rc19oLjmhua0qUJhEChUDiojei-RMbkQSmZbabDCxg6PYZ5OkXhWJN837QcRYGCrYCO9VseoCyzep0GSv6KpZT8xiIdlNe3jN9ba0yu9koCseRziv86ZKF8bYxuhRSDQkj3Rrg5FhShaBImNCh8s-J0LAGdIRNlFwYDfbzVMLwS_thiqq3TVthLoyN2gfK5WLDC9D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com
[The other study]
*Anomalously weak Labrador Sea convection and Atlantic overturning
during the past 150 years
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0007-4.epdf?referrer_access_token=H6z_2ZP9ax_Qq0K8UABeJ9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MAQC0usmARmECubT0sv_73cw8e7Uph8-WdBkYDpwNtr_YcnZI3A5E-WO2r6VQKcjCyXVvhm6vOTmIf8kNGnJHlud1rZFvRlFlVyiP-I9XabM_thcVMzFcjh4WF0HmwA9vWMsxm0fXjdj6F0_ytsjxWt_XSVFyvKQxBWUEwWkGBtAWrAsTM8HmaX9DB9GljiZ_YqjM49kz9QOhlQ2zQnPr7m2lNk8M4lyKr8P77l8FmUEirLajP7IYSPJ8lUiFz6T0epDbRXJ8bAxLcLdtqrTv3AGJYLDyZesk-YR-FhRzdfUwOmSoQ9-Pn22wz5snumV1-0hDg3lgxp0KxlepswVY_HabKnvmNXsX1IyfWsoUOKY3KWG_9tRK0CjCNad5mnyadpnsZxr3MxBSkwaXE9MZp&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com>*
Read this study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0007-4.epdf?referrer_access_token=H6z_2ZP9ax_Qq0K8UABeJ9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MAQC0usmARmECubT0sv_73cw8e7Uph8-WdBkYDpwNtr_YcnZI3A5E-WO2r6VQKcjCyXVvhm6vOTmIf8kNGnJHlud1rZFvRlFlVyiP-I9XabM_thcVMzFcjh4WF0HmwA9vWMsxm0fXjdj6F0_ytsjxWt_XSVFyvKQxBWUEwWkGBtAWrAsTM8HmaX9DB9GljiZ_YqjM49kz9QOhlQ2zQnPr7m2lNk8M4lyKr8P77l8FmUEirLajP7IYSPJ8lUiFz6T0epDbRXJ8bAxLcLdtqrTv3AGJYLDyZesk-YR-FhRzdfUwOmSoQ9-Pn22wz5snumV1-0hDg3lgxp0KxlepswVY_HabKnvmNXsX1IyfWsoUOKY3KWG_9tRK0CjCNad5mnyadpnsZxr3MxBSkwaXE9MZp&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com
[...seems to boil down to one question: censorship or self-censorship? -
A.T.]
*Lawmakers call for probe on whether human impact on climate change was
edited out of report
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lawmakers-call-probe-human-impact-climate-change-edited/story?id=54369702>*
By STEPHANIE EBBS - Apr 10, 2018
Lawmakers are asking the Interior Department's watchdog to look into
whether references to the human impact onclimate change
<http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/climate-change.htm>were edited out of
a government report on the impact ofsea level rise
<http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/energy/sea-level-rise.htm>on national
parks.
Reveal News, a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, reported
last week
<https://www.revealnews.org/article/wipeout-human-role-in-climate-change-removed-from-science-report/>thatNational
Park Service
<http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/national-park-service.htm>officials
deleted every mention of the human influence on climate change from 18
draft versions of the report. For example, terms like "anthropogenic"
and references to "human activities" causing climate change were
reportedly deleted or crossed out.
- - - - -
Five senators wrote the to Interior Department's inspector general on
Monday calling for an investigation into whether the report was altered
to remove references to the human impact of climate change. They wrote
that the report "raises serious concerns with respect to how the
department is - or is not - applying its scientific integrity policies
to publicly released scientific reports."
- - - - -
The House Natural Resources Committee's ranking member, Rep. Raul
Grijalva, D-Ariz., and four other Democrats have also asked the
department's inspector general to look into whether any of those changes
violate the agency's scientific integrity policy, which is in place to
ensure that scientific reports are impartial and not politically
influenced. Grijalva previously asked Zinke about reports that he asked
to see a U.S. Geological Survey report before it was published, a
request that led two scientists to resign. Zinke denied altering any
reports and said he never would.
- - - - -
"While it is possible that his own tenor keystroke did not alter the NPS
climate change report, at least one person that worked under his
leadership did," Democrats from the House Natural Resources Committee
wrote in their own letter. "It is essential that we understand whether
the changes were made in response to explicit verbal or written
direction, or whether they were the result of a culture of climate
denial that leads employees to believe the path of least resistance for
them and their work is to follow that lead."
(Zinke is scheduled to testify on the department's budget in front of a
House Appropriations subcommittee on Wednesday.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lawmakers-call-probe-human-impact-climate-change-edited/story?id=54369702
[The best Senator Sheldon Whitehouse speech so far]
*Time to Wake Up: Climate Denial (Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (April 2018)
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FomyqWP6ePs>*
Video speech Understanding Climate Change
From the transcript:
"... if the 14 million internal tobacco industry memos and documents
show one thing, clearly it is this: Political campaign networks -
built to defend and promote large corporate interests with
integrated goals messaging targets and allies simply don't
materialize overnight. The funding and strategies behind them take
years to develop before reaching maturity and they build on each
other over time. "
Published on Apr 11, 2018
Time to Wake Up: Climate Denial (Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (April 2018)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FomyqWP6ePs
[California Opinion]
*Jerry Brown's work to seal his climate legacy is only half done
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-brown-phaseout-oil-and-gas-20180411-story.html>*
By BILL MCKIBBEN - Apr 11, 2018
It seems a little churlish to prod Jerry Brown on carbon issues. He's
done as much as any leader in the world to move forward on the climate
and energy crises that are the defining challenges of our time.
But the truth is Brown's not done anywhere near what he could, nor what
the situation demands. As a coalition of nearly 800 groups from across
the state, the country and the planet make clear in a letter to Brown
released Wednesday, he's addressed no more than half the crisis: All of
California's environmental measures have been aimed at reducing the
demand for energy, and none at slowing down the production of fossil
fuel. Supply and demand are two equal halves of this fight; if we don't
recognize that fact we simply will not solve the climate conundrum....
*"All of California's environmental measures have been aimed at reducing
the demand for energy, and none at slowing down the production of fossil
fuel."...*
more at:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-brown-phaseout-oil-and-gas-20180411-story.html
[Climate Liability News]
*Sea Level Rise Poses Huge Threat to California, Heightening Urgency of
Liability Cases
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/11/sea-level-rise-california-liability-san-francisco/>*
Dana Drugmand
As fossil fuel companies try to fend offclimate liability lawsuits
<https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/22/climate-tutorial-judge-alsup-chevron-liability/>from
coastal California communities,a recent study
<http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/3/eaap9234>revealed some
alarming flood projections for the San Francisco Bay Area, bolstering
the communities' argument that rising seas pose imminent harm.
Thestudy <http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/3/eaap9234>looked at
land subsidence, or land that is sinking, which exacerbates flooding
risk as sea levels rise. Previous flood hazard maps underestimated the
land area at riskby up to 90 percent
<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/07/climate/san-francisco-sinking-land-flooding-climate-change.html>,
researchers found, because they were based only on sea level rise
projections.
Taking the sinking land into account adds to the urgency, and projected
costs, of adaptation.
"As sea levels rise and subsidence increases, and possibly groundwater
increases, we have a perfect storm of very significant challenges and
problems," said Diana Sokolove, senior planner for the San Francisco
Planning Department. "We're looking at billions of dollars [in costs]
over time."
San Francisco and neighboring Oakland are demanding that the big oil
companies-ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips-help foot
the bill. The cities claim the companies knowingly extracted and sold a
dangerous product that resulted in climate change harms like sea level
rise, which constitutes a public nuisance. For relief, the cities want
the companies to pay into an abatement fund that will help cover the
costs of building seawalls and other adaptive infrastructure...
- - - - - - -
San Francisco is examining vulnerabilities of specific areas and
properties, building off of a Sea Level Rise Action Plan study completed
in 2016.
"What we're doing is trying to get an understanding of what assets are
at risk, and what the consequences of those assets becoming exposed and
inoperable may be," said Sokolove, who is also co-chair of the Adapt SF
initiative.
She described some areas that are most vulnerable, including Ocean Beach
on the western shore and the waterfront and Mission Bay areas on the
eastern shore. Ocean Beach is experiencing significant erosion and storm
surge impacts from sea level rise. "We're really losing our beach,"
Sokolove said. "A lot of the infrastructure that is protected by the
beach sea wall is at risk." She said that amounts to several billion
dollars of wastewater infrastructure, homes and businesses. Historic
buildings and piers on the eastern side of the city are also at risk. "A
lot of the area on the eastern shoreline is just made up of fill and
rubble from the 1906 earthquake. It's artificially built waterfront
land, and that land is subject to subsidence."
Sokolove said that despite the challenges, the city is gearing up to
protect residents and vulnerable waterfront areas.
The cost burden of doing so should be on the fossil fuel companies, said
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. "These companies have made
enormous profits while putting our cities in harm's way. Now, the bill
has come due. It's time for them to pay for the seawalls and other
infrastructure needed to protect San Francisco and Oakland," he said in
a statement following the recent climate change tutorial.
Pine echoed the call for polluters to pay their fair share of the
damages. "SFO, Foster City and other San Mateo County shoreline
communities now face extraordinary costs to defend against sea level
rise," he said. "The fossil fuel companies who obfuscated the causal
link between their products and climate change must be held accountable
for the harm their products have caused. With land subsidence occurring
along the Bay Area shoreline, the threat of sea level rise has only
grown worse."
more at:
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/11/sea-level-rise-california-liability-san-francisco/
[with butter, please]
*Carbon emissions of lobster and shrimp outstrip chicken and pork-and
sometimes even beef
<http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/04/carbon-emissions-of-lobster-and-shrimp-outstrip-chicken-and-pork-and-sometimes-even-beef/>*
by Emma Bryce | Apr 6, 2018
If you want to clean up your carbon footprint, cut lobster and shrimp
from your diet. That's what a new study suggests after finding that
these fisheries chug through huge quantities of fuel and produce almost
a quarter of global fisheries emissions.
The new Nature Climate Change study finds that since 1990, emissions
from fishing overall have surged by a striking 28%, despite production
staying the same. That means that the emissions load per ton of catch
has shot up by 21% over just 20 years, because of more intensive fuel
use. Our appetite for crustaceans, it turns out, is the primary culprit.
In just a few decades, the rising popularity of lobster and shrimp has
driven a 60% increase in production, the study found. Paired with the
more intensive fuel use that shrimp and lobster trawling methods
require, these fisheries have become the biggest drivers of
fishing-related emissions increase: today they account for 22% of the
emissions total, despite making up just 6% of global catch landings. In
fact, the results suggested that lobster and shrimp fisheries produced
enough emissions to outstrip chicken and pork farming, and that certain
fisheries even produced more than beef.
On the other hand, pelagic fisheries like anchovies and sardines
accounted for a huge chunk of global landings, but just 2% of overall
fisheries emissions, because of their more fuel-efficient capture
methods....
more at:
http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2018/04/carbon-emissions-of-lobster-and-shrimp-outstrip-chicken-and-pork-and-sometimes-even-beef/
[accelerating trend]
*Researchers connect the data to show an accelerating trend for marine
heatwaves in our oceans
<https://phys.org/news/2018-04-hotter-longer-frequentmarine-heatwaves.html>*
Phys.Org
An international study in Nature Communications co-authored by
researchers from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes
(CLEX) and the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) reveals
globally marine heatwaves have increased over the past century in
number, length and intensity as a direct result of warming oceans.
"With more than 90% of the heat from human caused global warming going
into our oceans, it is likely marine heatwaves will continue to
increase. The next key stage for our research is to quantify exactly how
much they may change. "The results of these projections are likely to
have significant ...
From 1925-2016, the study found the frequency of marine heatwaves had
increased on average by 34% and the length of each heatwave had
increased by 17%. Together this led to a 54% increase in the number of
marine heatwave days every year.
"Our research also found that from 1982 there was a noticeable
acceleration of the trend in marine heatwaves," said lead author, Dr
Eric Oliver from Dalhousie University, Canada.
"While some of us may enjoy the warmer waters when we go swimming, these
heatwaves have significant impacts on ecosystems, biodiversity,
fisheries, tourism and aquaculture. There are often profound economic
consequences that go hand in hand with these events."
Some recent examples show just how significant marine heatwave events
can be.
In 2011, Western Australia saw a marine heatwave that shifted ecosystems
from being dominated by kelp to being dominated by seaweed. That shift
remained even after water temperatures returned to normal.
In 2012, a marine heatwave in the Gulf of Maine led to an increase in
lobsters but a crash in prices that seriously hurt the industry's profits.
Persistent warm water in the north Pacific from 2014-2016 led to fishery
closures, mass strandings of marine mammals and harmful algal blooms
along coastlines. That heatwave even changed large-scale weather
patterns in the Pacific Northwest.
More recently still, Tasmania's intense marine heatwave in 2016 led to
disease outbreaks and slowing in growth rates across aquaculture industries.
The researchers used a variety of observational datasets to reveal the
trend of increasing marine heatwaves, combining satellite data with a
range century long datasets taken from ships and various land based
measuring stations. They then removed the influences of natural
variability caused by the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to find
the underlying trend.
"There was a clear relationship between the rise in global average
sea-surface temperatures and the increase in marine heatwaves, much the
same as we see increases in extreme heat events related to the increase
in global average temperatures," said co-author Prof Neil Holbrook from
IMAS at the University of Tasmania.
"With more than 90% of the heat from human caused global warming going
into our oceans, it is likely marine heatwaves will continue to
increase. The next key stage for our research is to quantify exactly how
much they may change.
"The results of these projections are likely to have significant
implications for how our environment and economies adapt to this
changing world."
Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-hotter-longer-frequentmarine-heatwaves.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-hotter-longer-frequentmarine-heatwaves.html
[Resilience]
6 APRIL 2018
*A primer on resilience <https://thebulletin.org/primer-resilience11662>*
The March/April issue of the Bulletin magazine (free-access until June
2018) explores resilience and the climate threat. The issue is
guest-edited by Alice C. Hill, research fellow at the Stanford
University Hoover Institution and former senior director for resilience
policy for the National Security Council. Hill's work focuses on
building resilience to destabilizing catastrophic events, including the
impacts of climate change, and she brings her considerable expertise to
this special issue.
So what is 'resilience?' Why is it a useful term? And what are the
political and financial costs to make it a priority? We asked Hill to
explain.
*What is resilience?*
Resilience is a difficult term to define. We find that there are many
definitions out there, but they all center around this idea of bouncing
back - that you can prepare yourself, your character or your
infrastructure to be ready for shocks, absorb those shocks, and then
bounce back from the shock.
"Resilience" is particularly attractive to many people. In fact, the use
of the word has just exploded in recent decades because it allows a
common vocabulary for sometimes difficult issues. Climate change is one
of those issues. If you have a risk of flooding, you can talk about an
effort to prepare for flooding risk by being resilient, versus talking
about "climate adaptation".
When you have politicians who are working with communities that may have
a polarized electorate-some of whom don't believe or subscribe to the
science that has indicated climate change is occurring-those politicians
will use the word resilience as well as other community members to build
a coalition, to take action, to better prepare the community.
*Is resilience expensive?*
There's a recent study (built on prior work) that says that for every
dollar we spend [on resilience] we'll save $6 in recovery costs. That's
a remarkable cost benefit ratio. It's a higher figure than we had from
the earlier study, which said it was $4 for every $1 spent.
This study is not widely known yet. I think it's because most people
don't think in terms of cost-benefit analysis. But as we plan for the
future impacts of climate change, we necessarily have to judge whether a
particular investment-for example, to raise a road-makes sense in the
light of the risk that's faced. This ratio will help us better
understand what is a worthy investment and what is not.
*Are we investing enough in resilience? Why not?*
We are underinvesting in resilience. There's no question about that here
in the United States as well as worldwide. Some countries simply don't
have the funds at hand to invest in resilience. They're challenged too
much by poverty and other drivers that prevent them from focusing on
resilience.
In other nations, including our own, we are underinvesting in resilience
because it's difficult for people to understand the cost-benefit
analysis that, if they take measures now to better protect their home,
they could save themselves a lot of damage and money if a bad event-for
example, a hurricane or wildfire-were to occur. For many ordinary
citizens, that's not a common analysis. They assume that if their house
is built to the building code, that's sufficient. What they do not
realize is that we have a compounding future risk in climate change that
will make it difficult for all of us to remain resilient.
Another thing that we see in terms of resilience, and whether public
monies are spent on resilience, is that politicians are faced with many
very urgent demands: crime, schools, transportation challenges. So, for
them to focus on the important issues of building resilience, which may
not present as urgent as other issues, sometimes we see they may focus
on the urgent, rather than the important. I've heard this described as
NIMT: Not In My Term. The politicians will focus on the immediate things
to be fixed and leave the longer term challenges for the next person
that will be leading the community.
*So what can be done now to achieve resiliency?*
We best achieve resiliency by speaking with one another, looking at the
best available science, applying our best decision-making skills to
determine what our future risk is. Once we determine our future risk or
risk scenario, we're better able to plan how we can prepare ourselves
against that risk.
Politicians can use this format to bring along other members of the
community who may be hesitant to talk about climate change or may not
want to actually discuss the issue, to talk about the immediate problems
in their community, and what they can do to address those.
Share the full video of Alice Hill's primer on resilience, and learn
more about the topic in the March/April issue of the Bulletin magazine.
more at: https://thebulletin.org/primer-resilience11662
[Video from NASA]
*NASA-Latest Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2018
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq7SqSEqCSs>*
GlobalClimateNews
Published on Apr 9, 2018
Arctic sea ice reached its annual maximum extent on March 17, according
to analysis by NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The 2018
extent reached 5.59 million square miles, only about 23,000 square miles
larger than the lowest maximum on record, in 2017.
This continues a trend of shrinking sea ice, with the four lowest Arctic
sea ice maximum extents on record in the last four years. Dr. Claire
Parkinson explains how and why NASA studies Arctic sea ice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq7SqSEqCSs
[video channel]
*GlobalClimateNews <https://www.youtube.com/user/GlobalClimateNews/about>*
This channel is dedicated to the free distribution of scientifically
sound climate change information.
Since starting this channel dozens of videos have been forcibly taken
down and my account has had hundreds of hack attempts originating from
the US. Keep sharing a liking to keep the information alive. Thanks
everyone for your support.
https://www.youtube.com/user/GlobalClimateNews/about
*This Day in Climate History - April 12, 2013
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/12/1859541/yes-climate-change-is-worsening-us-drought-noaa-report-needlessly-confuses-the-issue/>
- from D.R. Tucker*
April 12, 2013: Joe Romm of Climate Progress and Kevin Trenberth of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research point out the flaws in a NOAA
study regarding recent droughts in the United States.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/12/1859541/yes-climate-change-is-worsening-us-drought-noaa-report-needlessly-confuses-the-issue/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
///To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
/to news digest. /
*** 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/20180412/e2234cbc/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list