[TheClimate.Vote] August 14, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/August 14, 2019/

[BBC video presentation Sustainable Thinking 19 videos ]
*Are you suffering from climate change anxiety?
*Psychologists report a rise in people suffering from climate change 
anxiety or eco-anxiety. What's it like? And what can you do to cope?
Made by BBC Northern Ireland, 19 March 201*
*https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/are-you-suffering-from-climate-change-anxiety/p073zgqd?playlist=sustainable-thinking*
- - -
**Climate change: The problem with the enemy narrative*
Why is more not being done to fight climate change? And is it helpful to 
cast some as "villains"? A video essay by filmmaker Brendan Miller.
https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/climate-change-the-problem-with-the-enemy-narrativ/p079qlwd?playlist=sustainable-thinking


[Global crisis]
*How the climate emergency could lead to a mental health crisis*
Anouchka Grose
'Ecological grief' is making Greenlanders depressed. They might not be 
alone for long
The Greenlandic Perspective Survey tells us that 90% of Greenlanders 
accept that climate change is happening. More than that, it's making 
them anxious and depressed. Given that they live in cultural and 
climactic conditions that put them at the frontline of ecological 
change, we might be well advised to take their thoughts and feelings 
seriously. Where they go, we may very well follow.

At opposite ends of the climate spectrum - from the parched landscape of 
New South Wales to Greenland's melting sea ice - people are finding the 
need for new words to describe the mental health issues linked to 
environmental change. In 2003 the Australian philosopher Glenn Albrecht 
coined the term solastalgia to describe the anguish caused by 
environmental alterations due to droughts and destructive mining. Taking 
the Latin word for comfort (solacium) and the Greek root designating 
pain (-algia) he gives us a neologism that sums up the devastating 
effects of finding unease where you used to look for relief.

If the world around you once promised to be a place that provided a 
certain amount of food, shelter and consistency, how might you feel as 
it gradually becomes a place of extreme unpredictability and risk? In 
Greenland, the north Baffin Inuit have the word uggianaqtuq to describe 
the unpleasant feeling caused by a friend behaving strangely, or even a 
sense of homesickness experienced when one is actually at home. More 
recently, this word has been coopted to describe volatile weather 
conditions and the sense of one's surroundings becoming unreliable - 
storms brew more suddenly and last for longer, the ice is thinner and 
food is noticeably more scarce. Where you used to be able to sustain 
yourself by hunting, fishing and foraging, now you may have to 
supplement this with trips to the newly established supermarket. But how 
are you supposed to pay for the food? And what if you can no longer 
afford to feed your dog?

Alongside these more specialised-sounding terms we also have the more 
self-explanatory "ecological grief" and even the idea of a kind of 
post-traumatic stress linked to the state of the planet. This last idea 
might sound strange - how can it be post-traumatic when the worst is yet 
to come? Can you be traumatised by something that's still happening or 
even, according to some, might not happen at all?

In the 19th century, the French neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot linked 
the apparently nonorganic symptoms of hysteria (a diagnosis he also 
believed could be applied to men) to the speed of modern life. He 
believed that previously unprecedented accidents related to industrial 
machinery and mechanised travel could have traumatising effects. After 
experiencing, or even nearly experiencing, a technologically related 
shock you might find yourself unable to process it mentally - it all 
happened too fast, too hard, too unnaturally to be thinkable. Human 
minds were simply not equipped to deal with the changes that were taking 
place in the world around them.

Whatever you make of Charcot's outdated, politically problematic medical 
categories, his idea of unthinkable transformation surely resonates. For 
all but the most stalwart climate change deniers something is definitely 
under way. But how exactly it will manifest itself, and how it will 
feel, is impossible to predict. Is it really true that we only have 50 
more harvests at the current rate of consumption? Might there be 
advantages for some as well as devastation for others? What impact might 
a vast reduction of resources have on human behaviour?

To many it seems we already have one foot planted in an unbearably 
dystopian future. How long will it be before political systems collapse 
and we turn against one another in a frenzy for the last scraps of 
sustenance? (Or any other imaginable form of mass-inflicted horror?) To 
others this sort of scenario is delusional, a symptom of media-fed 
panic. Both "realities" are subject to questioning. Who's to say who's 
madder?

In order to experience one's present reality as anything like a 
comfortably consistent set of conditions one has to include a 
calculation around the future. Some people are inclined to catastrophise 
while others prefer to blot out the possibility of unpleasantness. Both 
tendencies could be said to be attempts at self-preservation. Should you 
act pre-emptively to avert disaster, opening yourself up to accusations 
of being pathologically anxious, or keep calm and carry on at the risk 
of seeming at best obtuse or at worst selfishly destructive? Is it mad 
to mourn something before you've lost it? This is perhaps a particularly 
poignant question for a generation of young people currently asking 
themselves seriously whether or not it's irresponsible to have babies, 
many opting not to for fear of what the near future holds in store.

In a sense, all responses to the current ecological climate are mad, or 
at least maddening. Take the threat seriously and risk succumbing to 
solastalgia, or blot it out and be accused of opting out of reality. In 
the first case you madden yourself and in the second you madden other 
people. It can sometimes seem that the only reasonable response is 
melancholia, anger and helplessness. In the words of Dr Courtney Howard, 
board president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the 
Environment: "The intersection between the climate emergency and mental 
and physical health will become one of the world's major issues."

For anyone with their ear to the ground, this is obviously already the case.
[Anouchka Grose is a psychoanalyst and author]
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/climate-crisis-mental-health-environmental-anguish



[new times]
*Over 40 tornadoes have been confirmed in Pa. and N.J. this year. No, 
that is not normal.*
https://www.inquirer.com/news/tornadoes-philadelphia-severe-storms-pennsylvania-new-jersey-20190812.html 




[Information is power]
*THE MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR "CLIMATE SERVICES" INDUSTRY IS ALTERING ACCESS 
TO CLIMATE CHANGE DATA. CRITICS FEAR SOME MAY LOSE OUT.*
Will the rise of private climate services -- where companies sell data 
tailored to customers -- benefit society as a whole or only those who 
can afford to pay?

August 2, 2019 -- How do we avoid a future in which the best data for 
saving lives and property from climate destruction are only available to 
those who can afford it?

That's the question some observers and critics of "climate services" are 
asking. The fast growth of this field in recent years marks a profound 
shift in how our society creates and uses science. Rather than focus 
broadly on the regional, national or global impacts of rising 
temperatures, providers of climate services create data tailored to 
specific decision-makers: the mayor of a coastal city, say, or the CEO 
of an energy utility.

This field is spawning an industry of climate services companies that 
sense the potential for massive profits by selling customized data to 
clients who want to learn in explicit financial detail where and how 
much climate change will affect them.

One of the industry's leaders, a Silicon Valley executive named Rich 
Sorkin, made the case for climate services in May to the U.S. House 
Subcommittee on Environment. He argued that taking the big-picture 
climate science produced by federal agencies and turning it into 
hyperlocal threat assessments is a crucial and effective way for cities, 
states, companies and investors to better prepare for the climate emergency.

The field's growth "shifts the incentives for climate science away from 
the public interest towards the ongoing pursuit of profit." -Svenja Keele

Sorkin suggested that his risk-focused climate company Jupiter is 
uniquely suited to take on this job. "We believe the federal government 
should defer to the private sector in this area," he said in a statement.

That's not a universally held opinion, however. Earlier this year, the 
journal Climatic Change devoted a special issue to climate services, 
which included tough questions from critics. University of Melbourne 
researcher Svenja Keele argued in one paper that the field's growth 
"shifts the incentives for climate science away from the public interest 
towards the ongoing pursuit of profit."

University of Guelph assistant professor Eric Nost meanwhile asked, 
"when do climate services actually exacerbate existing vulnerabilities?"

Sorkin argues that companies like his -- which is part of an industry 
that in 2015 was valued globally at US$2.6 billion with 6% to 10% growth 
per year -- are nimble and innovative where government can be slow and 
cautious. "We're years ahead of what the public sector is doing," he says.

The flooded Battery Park Underpass in Manhattan following Superstorm Sandy
With parts of Manhattan flooded and without electricity after Superstorm 
Sandy, Emilie Mazzacurati, the founder and CEO of the climate services 
company Four Twenty Seven, wondered why financial organizations in 
particular -- which require a nuanced understanding of risk in order to 
survive -- failed to prepare for an obvious climate threat. Photo © 
iStockphoto.com/ovidiuhrubaru

In his statement, he likened Jupiter's impact on climate science to the 
disruptive influence of Amazon, Microsoft and Google on supercomputing: 
"In nearly every case, the private sector is leading the adoption of 
these new technologies, driven by brutal competition for profits."

And for companies like his, those profits can be lucrative. Jupiter's 
clients include players in oil and gas, insurance and defense. A new 
customer can expect to pay anywhere from US$200,000 to US$500,000 to 
learn how it is exposed to floods, heat, storms, fires and other impacts 
of climate change. A yearlong subscription could start at US$1 million, 
Sorkin says, "and for large corporations might be substantially more 
than that."

Other companies are also trying to cash in on the financial fear and 
insecurity prompted by rising global temperatures and unpredictable weather.

*Good for Society?*
But with that has come questions about who actually gains.

"[Commercially developed climate services] are often exclusive and only 
accessible by those involved and/or paying for that service," Marta 
Bruno Soares, a Met Office university academic fellow in the U.K., wrote 
in an email. "What is critical at this point is to understand how the 
climate services produced...are being licensed and what accessibility is 
allowed to whom."

Even industry leaders acknowledge the risk of a not-so-distant future 
where the wealthy and powerful have better information and tools for 
protecting themselves from the devastation of climate change than the 
poor and vulnerable.

"That's a huge concern, and I'm certainly not going to pretend that we 
have the solution," says Emilie Mazzacurati, the founder and CEO of Four 
Twenty Seven, a California-based climate services company that was 
recently acquired by Moody's. When it comes to climate adaptation, she 
adds, "there is massive inequality and massive concerns over equity that 
we're not going to solve with data."

"Scientists were saying, 'We knew this could happen,'" Mazzacurati says. 
"[There was] a disconnect between the available data and projections 
around risks from climate change and the fact that those were not 
systematically integrated for most organizations."

"I think that is an extremely important issue that we are very mindful 
of trying to address," says Sorkin. The company is looking at ways that 
it can aid those with fewer resources, such as working with U.S. 
communities to relocate away from climate dangers instead of merely 
rebuilding after disaster strikes.

"We're not in a position to give away what we're doing for free, but we 
do a pretty substantial amount of pro bono work," he says.

*Integrating Risks*
Mazzacurati founded Four Twenty Seven after Hurricane Sandy devastated 
New York City in 2012. "What struck me most was the chaos that [an] 
extreme weather event could bring to one of the wealthiest, most 
organized, most resourceful cities in the world -- and some of its most 
powerful businesses," she later recalled.

With parts of Manhattan flooded and without electricity, she wondered 
why financial organizations in particular -- which require a nuanced 
understanding of risk in order to survive -- failed to prepare for an 
obvious climate threat.

"Scientists were saying, 'We knew this could happen,'" Mazzacurati says. 
"[There was] a disconnect between the available data and projections 
around risks from climate change and the fact that those were not 
systematically integrated for most organizations."
Four Twenty Seven describes itself as a provider of "market 
intelligence." But it operates on the assumption that corporations and 
investors that learn about hyper-specific dangers they face from climate 
change -- whether that's a factory exposed to flooding or a high-carbon 
investment that could devalue a portfolio -- will not only protect their 
individual assets but push for wider climate solutions.

"We need both global policy action, and we need corporations to prepare 
for specific impacts," Mazzacurati says. "The realization of how complex 
[and costly] those impacts are...should help motivate greater policy 
engagement."

"When you change the narrative and you start discussing the impact that 
climate change will have on them rather than how evil they are...then 
you have a completely different conversation." -Carlo Buontempo

While managing the climate services team at the Met Office Hadley 
Centre, Carlo Buontempo did a project on the impact of climate change on 
corporations and oil companies.

"When you change the narrative and you start discussing the impact that 
climate change will have on them rather than how evil they are...then 
you have a completely different conversation," says Buontempo. "It's 
likely to trigger action."

But potentially only up to a point. In 2017, Royal Dutch Shell divested 
US$7.25 billion in investments from Canada's oil sands after learning 
about the financial damage a market shift to lower-carbon energy could 
have on its business model. Yet around the same time the company spent 
US$53 billion acquiring the fossil fuel giant BG Group, and The 
Economist recently reported that Shell is "earmarking most of its $30bn 
annual capital-expenditure budget over the five-year period [2021-2025] 
for fossil-fuel related projects."

*Replacement or Complement?*
Critics wonder if it's wise to assume that the self-interest of 
corporations and other powerful actors neatly align with the broader 
interests of society.

"We need to be alert to the possibility that [climate] service delivery 
models -- couched in the language of entrepreneurialism, efficiency, 
utility, customisation and flexibilization -- merely entrench the status 
quo...rather than support transformational and equitable responses to 
climate change," wrote Keele in Climatic Change.

Who will ultimately benefit from this involvement -- society at large, 
or the wealthy and well-connected?

Meanwhile, advocates question the underlying premise of such critiques: 
that the growth of climate services comes at the expense of traditional 
research. "We don't replace the fundamental science that government 
scientists and agencies perform," Mazzacurati says. "We're users of the 
data and we help bring it to market." In fact, the Trump 
administration's attacks on U.S. climate science -- including a proposal 
to slash US$1 billion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration alone -- are unwelcome news to the industry.

"We're very much...concerned over the budget cuts," Mazzacurati says.

Still, Sorkin acknowledges that a private sector approach -- at least on 
its own -- isn't likely to serve the needs of the planet's most 
vulnerable. "We don't really see underdeveloped communities or countries 
as profit generators for us," he says. Those types of projects, he says, 
only make financial sense with the government or NGOs as partners.

*Desperately Needed Shift*
No matter which side you come down on, the fact is that decades of 
warnings from climate scientists haven't yet produced the global action 
needed to avoid catastrophe. Buontempo says companies responding to 
narrow self-interest are one aspect of a desperately needed shift away 
from carbon-producing activities -- along with strategies for dealing 
with the impacts we're already locked into.

"The involvement of the private sector is for me inevitable," he says. 
"There are not enough academics working on climate to develop all the 
services that a society needs at this stage."

Whether or not that is the case, the question remains: Who will 
ultimately benefit from this involvement -- society at large, or the 
wealthy and well-connected?
https://ensia.com/features/private-climate-services-industry-environmental-justice-corporations-inequity/



[U.S. Navy Shuts Task Force on Climate Change]
DEFENSE
*Navy quietly shut down climate change task force*
Philip Athey, E&E News reporter
Greenwire: Wednesday, August 7, 2019
The Navy has quietly stood down its Task Force Climate Change, created 
in 2009 to plan and develop "future public, strategic, and policy 
discussions" on the issue.

The task force ended in March, a spokesperson said, and the group's tab 
on the Navy's energy, environment and climate change website was removed 
sometime between March and July, according to public archives.

There is still a climate change link in the lower right corner of the 
site that led, at last check, to an empty page titled "Climate Change 
Fact Sheets."
- - -
'Suspicious'
Retired Navy Rear Adm. Jon White, who ran TFCC from 2012 to 2015, said 
its goal was "never meant to be a never-ending thing," but to "get 
things down" and have climate change considerations incorporated into 
the Navy's planning.
- -
White said he is "suspicious" of how quietly the TFCC shut down, 
something that even he, as a former director, only heard about "third 
and fourth hand" as more of a rumor than actual fact.

"It was a very quiet canceling of the task force. I didn't know about 
it; no one told me," he said. "Usually, when you stand down a task 
force, you want to be able to go in there and declare victory."

'All goes back to the White House'
The task force did not release a final report, nor has the Navy 
indicated the exact offices that will be taking over the task force's 
area of responsibility.
- - -
"By not mentioning climate change, we are signaling the events that 
we're experiencing now, the impacts, are not something that immediately 
needs to be attended to and planned for," she added.

Trump has been a critic of climate science, having repeatedly called it 
a hoax that hurts the United States for the benefit of China, and his 
administration has received criticism in the past for trying to remove 
climate references from press releases and proposed rules.

"It all goes back to the White House," White said. "That's what changed, 
the White House," he added.

White said the president's insistence that climate change is not a 
national security threat has led to a culture in Navy leadership where 
people either do not care enough about the matter or they are too afraid 
for their careers to fight for climate considerations.

"They don't want to get targeted by the administration; it's a battle 
they don't want to fight," he said.
Twitter: @philipathey1 Email: pathey at eenews.net
https://perma.cc/X3GU-PRKW



[Go toward the South Pole]
*Icebergs delay Southern Hemisphere future warming, study shows*
New computer model simulations show effect of icebergs on global climate
Date: August 12, 2019
Source: Institute for Basic Science
*Summary:*
Future warming can accelerate the disintegration of the West Antarctic 
ice sheet. A large fraction of the ice will enter the Southern Ocean in 
form of icebergs, which melt and provide a cooling and freshening effect 
to the warmer and denser ocean water. This process will increase the 
formation of sea-ice and shift winds and ocean currents. The overall 
effect is a slowdown in the magnitude of human-induced Southern 
Hemispheric warming and sea-level rise, according to a new study.
New research, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, has 
found that Antarctic icebergs can weaken and delay the effect of global 
warming in the Southern Hemisphere.

Unabated global warming threatens the stability of the Antarctic ice 
sheet. Recent observations reveal a rapid thinning of the Pine Island 
and Thwaites glacier regions in Antarctica, which can be attributed 
partly to warming oceans. These findings have raised concerns of an 
accelerated ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet and potential 
contributions to global sea level rise. Ice loss can occur in the form 
of melt-induced (liquid) freshwater discharge into the ocean, or through 
(solid) iceberg calving.

With a projected future retreat of the Antarctic ice sheet, scientists 
expect an intensification of iceberg discharge. Icebergs can persist for 
years and are carried by winds and currents through the Southern Ocean 
until they reach warmer waters and ultimately melt. The melting process 
cools ocean waters like ice cubes in a cocktail glass. Furthermore, 
freshwater discharge from icebergs impacts currents by lowering ocean 
salinity. Whether this "iceberg effect'' can slow down or alter future 
climate change in the Southern Hemisphere has remained an open question....
- - -
"Our research highlights the role of icebergs in global climate change 
and sea level rise. Depending on how quickly the West Antarctic ice 
sheet disintegrates, the iceberg effect can delay future warming in 
cities such as Buenos Aires and Cape Town by 10-50 years." says Prof. 
Axel Timmermann, corresponding author of the study and Director of the 
IBS Center for Climate Physics.

The research team plans to further quantify the interplay between ice 
and climate and its effect on global sea level with a new computer model 
that they developed.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812172328.htm
- - -
[The study from Nature Climate Change - $]
*Antarctic iceberg impacts on future Southern Hemisphere climate*
Abstract
Future iceberg and meltwater discharge from the Antarctic ice sheet 
(AIS) could substantially exceed present levels, with strong 
implications for future climate and sea levels. Recent climate model 
simulations on the impact of a rapid disintegration of the AIS on 
climate have applied idealized freshwater forcing scenarios1,2 rather 
than the more realistic iceberg forcing. Here we use a coupled 
climate-iceberg model to determine the climatic effects of combined 
iceberg latent heat of fusion and freshwater forcing. The iceberg 
forcing is derived from an ensemble of future simulations conducted 
using the Penn State ice-sheet model3. In agreement with previous 
studies, the simulated AIS meltwater forcing causes a substantial delay 
in greenhouse warming in the Southern Hemisphere and activates a 
transient positive feedback between surface freshening, subsurface 
warming and ice-sheet/shelf melting, which can last for about 100 years 
and may contribute to an accelerated ice loss around Antarctica. 
However, accounting further for the oceanic heat loss due to iceberg 
melting considerably increases the surface cooling effect and reduces 
the subsurface temperature feedback amplitude. Our findings document the 
importance of considering realistic climate-ice sheet-iceberg coupling 
for future climate and sea-level projections.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0546-1



[look for the Southern solace]
*Humans cause Antarctic ice melt, study finds*
August 13th, 2019, by Alex Kirby
LONDON, 13 August, 2019 − A team of British and American scientists has 
found what it says is unequivocal evidence that humans are responsible 
for significant Antarctic ice melt. They say their study provides the 
first evidence of a direct link between global warming from human 
activities and the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).
- - -
The UK-US team report in the journal Nature Geoscience that, as well as 
the natural wind variations, which last about a decade, there has been a 
much longer-term change in the winds that can be linked with human 
activities.

This result is important for another reason as well: continued ice loss 
from the WAIS could cause tens of centimetres of sea level rise by the 
year 2100.

The researchers combined satellite observations and climate model 
simulations to understand how winds over the ocean near West Antarctica 
have changed since the 1920s in response to rising greenhouse gas 
concentrations.

Their investigation shows that human-induced climate change has caused 
the longer-term change in the winds, and that warm ocean conditions have 
gradually become more prevalent as a result.

The team's members are from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), Columbia 
University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, and the 
University of Washington.

*Galloping speed-up*
BAS is one of the organisations researching a huge West Antarctic ice 
mass in the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration, aimed at 
finding out how soon it and its neighbour, the Pine Island glacier, may 
collapse, with implications for sea levels worldwide.

The fact that melting at both poles has been accelerating fast has been 
known for some time, though not the reason. Since 1979 Antarctica's ice 
loss has grown six times faster, and Greenland's four times since the 
turn of the century.

One British scientist, Professor Martin Siegert, has said what is 
happening in the Antarctic means the world "will be locked into 
substantial global changes" unless it alters course radically by 2030.

The lead author of the new study, Paul Holland from BAS, said the impact 
of human-induced climate change on the WAIS was not simple: "Our results 
imply that a combination of human activity and natural climate 
variations have caused ice loss in this region, accounting for around 
4.5 cm of sea level rise per century."
*
**Act now*
The team also looked at model simulations of future winds. Professor 
Holland added: "An important finding is that if high greenhouse gas 
emissions continue in future, the winds keep changing and there could be 
a further increase in ice melting.

"However, if emissions of greenhouse gases are curtailed, there is 
little change in the winds from present-day conditions. This shows that 
curbing greenhouse gas emissions now could reduce the future sea level 
contribution from this region."

One co-author, Professor Pierre Dutrieux from Lamont-Doherty Earth 
Observatory, said: "...Now we have evidence that a century-long change 
underlies these cycles, and that it is caused by human activities."

Another co-author, Professor Eric Steig from the University of 
Washington, said: "These results solve a long-standing puzzle.  We have 
known for some time that varying winds near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet 
have contributed to the ice loss, but it has not been clear why the ice 
sheet is changing now.

"Our work with ice cores drilled in the Antarctic Ice Sheet have shown, 
for example, that wind conditions have been similar in the past. But the 
ice core data also suggest a subtle long-term trend in the winds. This 
new work corroborates that evidence and, furthermore, explains why that 
trend has occurred." − Climate News Network
https://climatenewsnetwork.net/humans-cause-antarctic-ice-melt-study-finds/
- - -
[Source material from Nature Geoscience]
*West Antarctic ice loss influenced by internal climate variability and 
anthropogenic forcing*
Abstract
Recent ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been caused by 
ocean melting of ice shelves in the Amundsen Sea. Eastward wind 
anomalies at the shelf break enhance the import of warm Circumpolar Deep 
Water onto the Amundsen Sea continental shelf, which creates transient 
melting anomalies with an approximately decadal period. No anthropogenic 
influence on this process has been established. Here, we combine 
observations and climate model simulations to suggest that increased 
greenhouse gas forcing caused shelf-break winds to transition from mean 
easterlies in the 1920s to the near-zero mean zonal winds of the present 
day. Strong internal climate variability, primarily linked to the 
tropical Pacific, is superimposed on this forced trend. We infer that 
the Amundsen Sea experienced decadal ocean variability throughout the 
twentieth century, with warm anomalies gradually becoming more 
prevalent, offering a credible explanation for the ongoing ice loss. 
Existing climate model projections show that strong future greenhouse 
gas forcing creates persistent mean westerly shelf-break winds by 2100, 
suggesting a further enhancement of warm ocean anomalies. These wind 
changes are weaker under a scenario in which greenhouse gas 
concentrations are stabilized.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0420-9



*This Day in Climate History - August 14, 2015 - from D.R. Tucker*
August 14, 2015:

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson falsely claims that "we
currently do not have feasible policy responses that are adequate"
to meet the challenge of human-caused climate change "even if we had
far greater political will," ignoring the fact that there were
plenty of policy solutions that were rejected by his former
employer, President George W. Bush, as well as a right-wing US House
of Representatives and Senate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-need-a-miracle-on-climate-change/2015/08/13/fd44a7b0-41d8-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <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.