[TheClimate.Vote] January 31, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu Jan 31 10:36:55 EST 2019
/January 31, 2019/
[PBS on YouTube with Jennifer Francis ]
*Why the Midwest's deep freeze may be a consequence of climate change*
PBS NewsHour
Published on Jan 30, 2019
More than a quarter of the U.S. population is expected to deal with
sub-zero temperatures this week. The extreme cold has sparked some
public skepticism over global warming, but scientists actually believe
it is a consequence of climate change. Amna Nawaz talks to Dr. Jennifer
Francis of the Woods Hole Research Center for an explanation of this
counterintuitive weather relationship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9qoU9_tGhA
- -
[definitions]
*GLOBAL WARMING* is an upward (not downward) trend (not fluctuation) in
global (not local) temperature. *Climate change* is any meaningful (i.e.
not just fluctuations) change of any climate/weather variable.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/01/30/what-exactly-is-the-difference-between-climate-change-and-global-warming-dont-hate-im-new-at-this/
[see for yourself - Interactive calculated data map displays future]
*Welcome to the Cumulative Exposure to Climate Change app. *
**This app allows users to view the estimated magnitude of exposure to
climate change related hazards for any location and for any time from
1956 to 2095 under three alternative scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions.
The broad threat to humanity from ongoing greenhouse gas emissions
Summary: Ongoing greenhouse gas emissions are simultaneously shifting
many elements of Earth's climate beyond thresholds that can impact
humanity. By affecting the balance between incoming solar radiation and
outgoing infrared radiation, man-made greenhouse gases are increasing
the Earth's energy budget ultimately leading to warming . Given
interconnected physics, warming can affect other aspects of the Earth's
climate system. For instance, by enhancing water evaporation and
increasing the air's capacity to hold moisture, warming can lead to i)
extreme precipitation, also increasing risk of floods, in commonly wet
places or ii) drought in commonly dry places, also increasing risk of
wildfires, and heatwaves when heat transfer from water evaporation
ceases. In the oceans, CO2 interacts with water to produce carbonic acid
leading to ocean acidification whereas warming of water molecules
increases the volume they occupy adding to the sea-level rise from
melting land ice. Ocean warming can also supply moisture increasing the
strength of storms. In an extensive literature review, we found
traceable evidence for 467 pathways in which human health, water, food,
economy, infrastructure and security have been recently impacted by
climate hazards such as warming, heatwaves, precipitation, drought,
floods, fires, storms, sea level rise, and changes in natural land cover
and ocean chemistry. By 2100, on average, the world's population will be
exposed concurrently to the equivalent of the largest magnitude in one
of these hazards if greenhouse gasses are aggressively reduced or three
if they are not; some tropical coastal areas will be exposed to the
largest changes in up to six hazards concurrently. These findings
highlight that greenhouse gas emissions pose a broad threat to humanity
by simultaneously intensifying many hazards, which humanity is
vulnerable to. https://maps.esri.com/MoraLab/CumulativeChange/index.html
*Map description:* This web app shows the cumulative index of 11 climate
hazards: warming, drought, heatwaves, fires, precipitation, floods,
storms, water scarcity, sea level rise, and changes in natural land
cover and ocean chemistry. All climate hazards were scaled between zero
and the 95th percentile change projected in the given hazard globally by
2095 under RCP 8.5 (worse case scenario); In other words, a pixel with a
value of zero in a given hazards suggests that that hazard will not
change in that pixel. In turn, a pixel with a value of 1 suggests that
the most extreme increase of that hazard anywhere in the world will
occur in that pixel. This standardization allowed for the summation of
changes in all hazards at a given pixel to generate a cumulative index
of climate change shown in this web app globally under three alternative
scenarios.
Journal: Nature Climate Change
For more information please review Cumulative Exposure to Climate Change
by Mora et al from the University of Hawai'i's Department of Geography.
https://maps.esri.com/MoraLab/CumulativeChange/index.html
- - -
[tracking impacts]
*Traceable evidence of the impacts of climate change on humanity*
http://impactsofclimatechange.info/
[video about 14 mins]
*Pacific Northwest, Alaska & The Islands - Global Weirding*
Global Weirding with Katharine Hayhoe
Premiered Jan, 30, 2019
Today's Global Weirding episode is the last in our series of 4 episodes
examining climate change effects around the United States.
On this episode we look at the Pacific Northwest, Alaska and the islands
around the U.S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRMDsMAxYGE
[Wasted heat too]
*The Fracking Industry's Flaring Problem May Be Worse Than We Thought*
By Justin Mikulka - Tuesday, January 29, 2019
In 2018, the oil and gas industry operating in North Dakota's Bakken
Shale burned off record amounts of natural gas, largely obtained via
hydraulic fracturing (fracking). This process, known as flaring, costs
the industry money -- it literally burns one of the products being
pumped out of the ground -- but more importantly, the resulting release
of globe-warming emissions of carbon dioxide and methane spells disaster
for the climate.
And a new analysis of satellite evidence indicates the industry is
likely underreporting how much gas it is actually flaring in the Permian
Shale, with implications for other oil fields.
According to the Bismarck Tribune, the amount of gas flared in North
Dakota in October was enough to heat 4.25 million homes in America. And
while the fracking industry in North Dakota is flaring the most gas in
the nation, it's not the only place this is a growing issue. Flaring
reportedly also doubled in 2018 in the booming Permian Shale in Texas
and New Mexico, with an estimated $1 million a day of gas burned off.
In addition, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) recently analyzed
satellite data and concluded that the industry is likely underreporting
the actual volumes of gas flared in the Permian. EDF says that the real
numbers are closer to double what the industry reports...
- -
*Federal Regulations on Flaring and Venting Natural Gas Repealed*
At the end of the Obama administration in 2016, the Bureau of Land
Management released new regulations "to reduce waste of natural gas from
venting, flaring, and leaks during oil and natural gas production
activities on onshore Federal and Indian leases."
After Trump took over, however, the agency decided to review this new
rule and in October 2018 released a revised, relaxed form of those
regulations.
At the time of the release, David Bernhardt, now the acting Secretary of
the Interior, explained the purpose of the changes: "We're fulfilling a
commitment to a policy vision the president established to promote clean
development of our resources without regulation that encumbers business,
restrains growth, and prevents job creation."...
- -
*Fracking's Many Climate Impacts*
"Drilling Towards Disaster," a new report by Oil Change International,
outlines how fracking is driving oil and gas production in America (and
being exported to the rest of the world) and the dangers this poses by
driving future climate impacts at a time when rapid decarbonization of
the global economy is required.
By essentially providing no real limitations on flaring, state and
federal regulators are allowing the oil and gas industry to produce
record amounts of oil, which accelerates climate change when the oil is
burned. However, the situation also releases additional carbon dioxide
when the gas is flared, without providing any economic benefit, such as
powering millions of American homes.
Additionally, the methane that is leaked in the supply chain, and in
some cases intentionally vented into the atmosphere, adds to global
warming. Methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide in the short term.
And even with the Trump administration rolling back a number of
environmental regulations like the rules for methane flaring and
venting, the oil and gas industry is looking for still more deregulation
from the federal government.
With the federal government now open after a 35-day-long shutdown, it's
back to business as usual.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem
[Video clip...number one is air pollution]
*5 Things in China That Could Kill You - China Uncensored*
From poisonous food and drink to horrible traffic accidents, China can
be an extremely dangerous place. These are the Top 5 Things in China
That Could K I L L You!
https://youtu.be/znvFq1LjTvc?t=557 (number one)
- - -
[South China Morning Post news story]
*Air pollution is killing 1 million people and costing Chinese economy
267 billion yuan a year, research from CUHK shows*
Two pollutants were found to cause an average 1.1 million premature
deaths in the country each year and are destroying 20 million tonnes of
rice, wheat, maize and soybean
PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 02 October, 2018
- -
Yim's team analysed 2010 contributions to ground-level ozone (O3) and
fine respirable particulate (PM2.5) pollution from six sectors of the
economy - industrial, commercial and residential, agriculture, power
generation, ground transport and "others", such as aviation and fires...
- - -
According to the World Health Organisation, nine out of 10 people in the
world breathe polluted air and seven million people die every year due
to exposure to fine particles, with outdoor air pollution comprising the
lion's share.
The average concentration of PM2.5 in Chinese cities is 48 micrograms
per cubic metre of air, more than double that of the 19mcg world average
of 2,626 cities.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2166542/air-pollution-killing-1-million-people-and-costing-chinese
- - -
[research source]
*9 out of 10 people worldwide breathe polluted air, but more countries
are taking action*
2 May 2018 News Release Geneva
Air pollution levels remain dangerously high in many parts of the world.
New data from WHO shows that 9 out of 10 people breathe air containing
high levels of pollutants. Updated estimations reveal an alarming death
toll of 7 million people every year caused by ambient (outdoor) and
household air pollution.
"Air pollution threatens us all, but the poorest and most marginalized
people bear the brunt of the burden," says Dr Tedros Adhanom
Ghebreyesus, Director-General of WHO. "It is unacceptable that over 3
billion people - most of them women and children - are still breathing
deadly smoke every day from using polluting stoves and fuels in their
homes. If we don't take urgent action on air pollution, we will never
come close to achieving sustainable development."
*7 million deaths every year*
WHO estimates that around 7 million people die every year from exposure
to fine particles in polluted air that penetrate deep into the lungs and
cardiovascular system, causing diseases including stroke, heart disease,
lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases and respiratory
infections, including pneumonia.
Ambient air pollution alone caused some 4.2 million deaths in 2016,
while household air pollution from cooking with polluting fuels and
technologies caused an estimated 3.8 million deaths in the same period.
More than 90% of air pollution-related deaths occur in low- and
middle-income countries, mainly in Asia and Africa, followed by low- and
middle-income countries of the Eastern Mediterranean region, Europe and
the Americas.
Around 3 billion people - more than 40% of the world's population -
still do not have access to clean cooking fuels and technologies in
their homes, the main source of household air pollution. WHO has been
monitoring household air pollution for more than a decade and,while the
rate of access to clean fuels and technologies is increasing everywhere,
improvements are not even keeping pace with population growth in many
parts of the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
WHO recognizes that air pollution is a critical risk factor for
noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), causing an estimated one-quarter (24%)
of all adult deaths from heart disease, 25% from stroke, 43% from
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 29% from lung cancer.
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/02-05-2018-9-out-of-10-people-worldwide-breathe-polluted-air-but-more-countries-are-taking-action
Data source -
https://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/cities/en/
- - -
[Common sense - conclusion studied]
*Air pollution may be affecting how happy you are*
January 30, 2019
For decades now, GDP has been the standard measure of a nation's
well-being. But it is becoming clear that an economic boost may not be
accompanied by a rise in individual happiness.
While there are many reasons for this, one important factor is that as
nations become richer, environmental features such as green space and
air quality often come under increasing threat. The mental health
benefits of access to parks or waterfronts, for instance, have long been
recognised but more recently researchers have also started to look at
the role air pollution can play in our general mental health and happiness.
With more tangible outcomes such as health, cognitive performance or
labour productivity, the adverse effects of poor air are significant and
well-established. The link to infant mortality and respiratory disease
is well known, and the World Health Organisation estimates that around
7m deaths are attributable to air pollution each year.
But while many people will die and many more will acquire a chronic
health condition, focusing on objective indicators such as these may
still understate the true welfare cost. This is because there is now
good evidence of a direct link between air quality and overall mental
health and happiness...
- - -
One particularly innovative study looked at what happened when large
power plants in Germany were fitted with equipment designed to reduce
emissions. Researchers had access to happiness data from a long-term
survey of a panel of around 30,000 Germans, and categorised everyone by
whether they lived upwind or downwind of a power plant (or nowhere near).
The research found that those downwind underwent a significant
improvement in their happiness levels after the installation, while
their upwind neighbours did not benefit. This sort of comparison - a
natural experiment that would be impossible and perhaps unethical to
replicate in a lab - helps to ensure that the improvement in happiness
was due to the improvement in air quality as opposed to other factors...
- -
This study adds to a pile of research which suggests that air pollution
can be detrimental to happiness - but we still need more research on why
this is. While health is undoubtedly a factor, we know from studies that
control for health status that air pollution affects happiness over and
above any indirect effects on physical condition. Some possible reasons
for the direct link include aesthetics such as haze, smell and even
taste, as well as anxiety about personal health or the health of others.
Air pollution has also been a focus of several studies on cognitive
impairment, but it is still too early to say if it really plays a role
in brain health.
Improving the well-being of citizens remains an obvious and important
aim of public policy. To date, the principal focus has been on material
well-being but many social scientists and indeed policy makers now argue
that we need to take account of how people think and feel about the
quality of their life. This is not to ignore material factors like
income or physical health. Rather, a comprehensive picture of societal
well-being needs to integrate objective indicators with subjective
measures like happiness. Doing so will help ensure that we take account
of the total cost of environmental degradation such as air pollution.
And we will all be better off as a result.
https://theconversation.com/air-pollution-may-be-affecting-how-happy-you-are-110470
[from NatureResearch Journal]
*US climate costs will be highest in Republican strongholds*
Districts where politicians have generally opposed climate policies will
see the most economic damage this century.
The bulk of the economic burden resulting from climate change in the
United States this century will fall on Republican strongholds where
politicians have traditionally opposed policies to curb greenhouse
gases. And as the impacts mount, they could potentially alter the
political dynamics, says an analysis released on 29 January by the
Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington DC.
Researchers compared the projected economic impacts of global warming by
the end of the century -- including changes in mortality, agricultural
yields and coastal damage driven by extreme weather and rising seas, for
example -- to recent voting patterns across the United States.
They found that vast swaths of the Republican-leaning southwest and
southeast could see economic losses of 10-28% by the end of the century
(see 'Geography of impact'). Meanwhile, northern regions that include
many Democratic-voting states, will experience fewer impacts and could
even benefit from some of the results of climate change, including
increases in agricultural yields.
All told, 15 of the 16 states with the most to lose economically from
global warming voted for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump
in 2016, according to the analysis (see 'Voting climate'). Trump's
administration has worked aggressively to dismantle climate regulations
put in place under former President Barack Obama.
The US states at most risk are part of a "barricade" that opposes action
to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, says co-author David Victor, a
political scientist at the University of California, San Diego. "The
politics are flipped upside down," Victor says.
But, he adds, public recognition of the problem could increase as
global-warming effects accumulate.
*Facts to the rescue*
There is some recent evidence that information about climate impacts is
already persuading the public. In a poll conducted in December by the
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 73% of US respondents said
they understand that global warming is happening -- an increase of ten
percentage points since March 2015.
The number of people in the United States who say they have personally
experienced the impacts of global warming has increased 15% over the
same period, to 46%. And nearly two-thirds think that global warming is
affecting the weather, while roughly half say that it made wildfires
and/or hurricanes worse in 2018.
Climate change is not immune to the political divisions in the United
States, but opinions do change in response to facts and personal
experience, says co-author Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the
institution. "That is what the new survey data is beginning to show."
But translating public understanding of the influence of climate change
into concrete -- and potentially expensive -- actions to curb greenhouse
gases is a daunting challenge. Climate change remains a relatively
low-priority issue among US voters, and the political leadership that is
needed to build support for climate policies is missing, says Megan
Mullin, a political scientist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
"People elect leaders, but leaders also affect people's perceptions,"
Mullin says. As long as mainstream politicians refuse to acknowledge the
scientific evidence on climate change, she says, making progress on
meaningful climate policies will be difficult.
Still, Victor says that talking about economic impacts is more likely to
persuade conservative voters of the need for action than is talking
about environmental concerns. What's needed, he says, is more scientific
evidence that connects the dots between global warming and local costs
to taxpayers.
"That's what makes it all palpable," he says. "Once you understand the
local costs -- that tells you what the public needs to do."
doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-00327-2
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00327-2
[first step is to talk]
*How to Talk to Your Kids About Climate Change*
Without scaring the living daylights out of them.
By Tyghe Trimble - Jan 02 2018
Jeff Goodell has been covering climate change as a reporter for 20
years, detailing how we humans have brought on and will deal with the
planet's changes with such books as Big Coal, How to Cool the Planet,
and, most recently, The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities,
and the Remaking of the Civilized World. In this insightful,
deeply-reported book, Goodell talks about the blind eye planners and
citizens turn on cities like Miami, which by some estimates could be
underwater in our lifetime and how "the real X-factor here is not the
vagaries of climate science, but the complexity of human psychology."
But what if that human is a small one? Goodell, the father of three
teenagers, has raised a household that understands the massive problems
linked to climate change and has insight on how we can turn this complex
topic to our kids.
*Just how do we teach our kids about climate change?*
It's something I think about all the time because I have three kids, two
19-year olds and a 15-year-old and I talk to them about a lot. I feel
like my job here articulating the problem as well as I can when it comes
to climate change. Because they're going to be the ones who solve it.
It's going to be the great challenge of their time.
*What should "the talk" about climate change look like?*
It's not a birds-and-the-bees thing. It's an ongoing conversation that
one has throughout their life. It starts out with talking about science
-- in the way that a three-year-old or four-year-old would understand
it. You can't grasp what's happening without understanding two things:
The fundamentals of science and faith in creativity. Those are the two
things I try to underscore with my kids. In the past, people have had to
deal with all kinds of complicated challenges, from plagues to political
revolutions. Dealing with change is what we as humans have to do.
*The most dangerous thing you can do as a parent is to pretend it's not
happening.*
How would you tell the story of climate change to younger kids?
One of the ways that kids have a window into the science is through
animal stories -- about polar bears on the declining ice or birds that
have to migrate. In my view, Mother Nature is the greatest storyteller
of all. Kids can't be expected to care for the natural world, much less
to understand it, unless they spend some time living in it. I think it's
very important for them to see that nature is not something that's "out
there," but the fundamental basis of the world we live in. I always felt
like it was my job as a parent to make sure my kids see the Milky Way,
pick up frogs, swim in lakes and rivers, scramble over boulders, trace
the veins on a leaf.
*How do you make time outdoors a learning experience?*
I'm taking my daughter this spring to the Great Barrier Reef. I want her
to come and to see the reef and I want her to have that experience of
the beauty of this reef before it goes away. We're learning all about
coral right now and talking about how scientists are working to restore
coral; why the great barrier reef is in danger; what coral bleaching is.
I'm using it as a broad educational thing.
But you don't have to go to the Great Barrier Reef or the Greenland
glaciers. Just pointing out how the water on the lake is freezing at
different times or talking about how natural cycles work and how they're
changing, or why the birds are different here. On the darker side of it,
talking about things like the California wildfires is important. Why are
there these big fires? Parents can point out there have always been big
fires but now because of less rainfall and drier conditions bigger fires
are more likely.
Stories about entrepreneurs and inventors and scientists and the
miracles of what some of these great inventors have done in the past are
really important. These are more essential to the kid than the
particulars of climate change.
*What do you do when your kid oversimplifies the problem, saying they
like beaches and warm weather?*
We all love beaches and warm weather. That's a basic human feeling.
That's why Coastal communities are popular. There's something very
primal about our love of water and warm places. You can say that's great
and I love it too, but as the world warms up, it's going to bring other
not-so-wonderful changes too. It's going to melt the ice in the Arctic,
for example, and Seas are going to rise. Use it as an opportunity to
talk about the good things, but also that there's another side of this
that you're not seeing right here as we're lying on the beach. Use it as
a lever into a larger conversation.
*In other words, life's not a beach.*
One of the hard things as a parent is that you want your kids to be safe
and you want to think your kids are growing up in a world where they'll
have opportunities and where they're going to have a chance at a better
life and that's why we all work so hard as parents. That's a hard thing
to communicate because for a lot of people it will be a rougher world.
How you think about that and how you encourage your kids to be smart and
flexible and adaptive and creative is really the important thing. That's
why stories about entrepreneurs and inventors and scientists and the
miracles of what some of these great inventors have done in the past are
really important. These are more essential to the kid than the
particulars of climate change.
That's why I want to raise tough, smart, resilient kids. I want them to
understand, to know that they're moving into a different world. I want
them to be ready for it.
*What, then, do we tell them about Scott Pruitt?*
I think being frank with your kids is really important. I don't mean you
have to say that he's a corrupt man who's basically on the take from the
fossil fuel industry and is doing everything he can to dismantle
environmental protections in America and making the world a dirtier and
less safe place for you -- which is the adult thing one might say. But
you can say he is rolling back laws that you think are important and
that you disagree with him. I say that the Director of the Environmental
Protection Agency really important job and that job is to safeguard
environmental protections for our world to make sure we have clean water
to drink and clean air to breathe. I want someone in there who will do
just that.
*
**How can Americans, in particular, prepare our kids for the future?*
We're seeing major geopolitical shifts that are certainly linked to
climate change and energy. The 20th century, the post-WWII moment was
one of great American leadership economically and morally. That's pretty
obviously not going to be the story of the 21st century. I've spent a
lot of time in China, and they get it. They've moved so quickly toward
clean energy and solar power, they've brought hundreds of millions of
people out of poverty and done it in a way that's really raised the
standard of living, but they're also they're making huge strides toward
clean energy, self-driving, electric cars. They get that whoever
dominates the clean energy world will dominate the economy of the 21st
century. On the other hand, we have a president who is pedaling the
fantasy of the comeback of coal. He's pushing 19th-century fuels and I
think the economic costs of that will be enormous in the long run.
I encouraged my son to take Chinese. I really think that fluency in the
world is going to be increasingly important. Seeking opportunities
beyond the borders of America will be really really important in the
future. Far more so than it is now.
*What kind of world do you expect your grandchildren to live in?*
It's not going to resemble my world much at all -- a stable democracy,
the United States of America I grew up in. I ascribe to the idea that I
never make predictions especially about the future, so I do not know
what form their world will take but I do think it will be radically
different. It will be very chaotic, it will be very, to be blunt,
Darwinian in that the strongest and smartest are the ones that survive
and thrive. I do believe in creativity and I have an optimistic view
about the human spirit, but I think the changes we're going to be seeing
are very disruptive. The X-factor is the human psychology and how people
will react to this. And I think the world that my grandkids will live in
will be a giant character test for humanity and I don't know where that
will go.
That's why I want to raise tough, smart, resilient kids. I want them to
understand, to know that they're moving into a different world. I want
them to be ready for it. The most dangerous thing you can do as a parent
is to pretend it's not happening. Then they find out that "Oh, the world
is not what i expected, I'm disillusioned, I'm shocked, this is not what
my parents told me it was going to be like." I think saying, "Look, the
world is going to be different for you. Here's these changes that are
happening. Be smart, be ready, and go for it."
https://www.fatherly.com/parenting/education-parenting/talk-kids-climate-change/
[What to tell the kids]
*The Fatherly Podcast Episode 28: How Do We Prepare Kids for Global
Warming?*
Preparing a kid to live in the world isn't just about the kid -- it's
about the world. And as the world gets warmer, it's also getting more
dangerous.
By Fatherly Jan 28 2019,
Preparing a kid to live in the world isn't just about the kid -- it's
about the world. As the global threat of climate change looms, parents
worry (for good reason) about the state of the environment and the
potential threat changing temperatures, water levels, and weather might
pose to the future wellbeing of their children. The Fatherly Podcast
host Joshua David Stein and co-host Jason Gay both worry about this in
the abstract. But the abstract can only get you so far. So the duo
reached out to legendary University of Hawaii climate scientist Dr.
Camilo Mora, the author of a new, mind-blowing paper about future disasters.
Our two dads were looking for Mora, who is also a dad, to provide some
reassurance. That did not happen.
Mora outlined a future in which the only constant is likely to be
destructive change, further convincing Joshua and Jason that they need
to teach their kids to always be prepared and to prepare themselves for
the inevitable side effects of climate change. Eager to make some plans,
Joshua and Jason then spoke with Patrick Coleman, Fatherly's parenting
expert, on how to talk to kids about the environment. The takeaway: Try
to do it in a way that won't terrify them. (Good luck with that!)
Enjoy our most terrifying and depressing podcast to date. Also, batten
down the hatches.
https://www.fatherly.com/love-money/fatherly-podcast-global-warming-camilo-mora/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/913-the-fatherly-podcast-28562892/episode/the-planet-is-a-literal-hot-30459716/
[Precedent Govt agency schools president]
*NOAA posts cartoon which appears to challenge Trump's climate change
skepticism*
BY GRACE SEGERS
The day after President Trump posted a tweet suggesting extreme cold
temperatures in the Midwest cast doubt on the existence of global
warming, the climate service for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) tweeted a cartoon explaining warming oceans result
in more extreme winter weather.
"In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60
degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even
colder. People can't last outside even for minutes. What the hell is
going on with Global Waming? [SIC] Please come back fast, we need you!"
Mr. Trump tweeted.
Forecasters say millions of people in the Midwest and Great Lakes will
see record-shattering wind chills from 40 to 65 degrees below zero this
week due to a "polar vortex." And global warming may be playing a direct
role in this: there is a theory that as areas near the North Pole warm
more than two times faster than the rest of the globe, it weakens the
polar vortex, displacing cold air masses southward into Europe, Asia and
the United States.
"Winter storms don't prove that global warming isn't happening," the
NOAA tweet said, linking to a 2015 article on Climate.gov which explains
that "warmer air temperatures fuel more evaporation, leading to a wetter
atmosphere, which increases rain or snow totals." The tweet also
included a descriptive cartoon from the 2015 article.
NOAA Climate.gov
https://twitter.com/NOAAClimate/status/1090263390503596032/photo/1
@NOAAClimate
Winter storms don't prove that global warming isn't happening.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-record-snowstorms-proof-global-warming-isn%E2%80%99t-happening
…
In a statement to CBS News, NOAA said the tweet was not made in response
to Mr. Trump, but was "something NOAA routinely puts out when we get an
extreme cold snap such as the one we're in now."
Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed on Twitter global warming is a "hoax."
In 2012, he tweeted global warming was created "by and for the Chinese
in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." Although he later
said he was joking, he continued to refer to climate change as a hoax
through the presidential campaign. One of his first actions as president
was to announce the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, a
global agreement to mitigate climate change.
However, global climate change -- the warming of the climate due to
human activities -- has been accepted almost universally by scientists.
There is even a page on the NASA website providing evidence and
consensus on the reality of climate change. Many of the states that are
likely to see disproportionately negative effects in the coming years
are some that supported Mr. Trump in 2016, like Florida and Texas, as
well as others in the Southeast, which may sustain increased coastal
damage because of more powerful storms, according to a new report by the
Brookings Institute.
The report found "climate-caused deaths will hurt the Southwest, as
coastal storms and sea-level issues batter the Southeast, Florida, and
the Gulf Coast."
And yet, some Democratic-leaning states could actually see an economic
benefit from global warming, with a longer growing season that increases
agricultural yields, the report also says.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noaa-responds-to-trumps-climate-change-skepticism-with-a-cartoon/
*This Day in Climate History - January 31, - from D.R. Tucker*
January 31, 1989: The Los Angeles Times reports:
"Secretary of State James A. Baker III, emphasizing the Bush
Administration's concern about global environmental problems, said
Monday that the nations of the world cannot wait for solid
scientific confirmation of global warming before taking action.
"In the first remarks on global environmental issues by a senior
Bush Administration official since the inauguration, Baker said that
the United States and the world must 'focus immediately' on energy
conservation, reforestation and reductions in harmful chemical
emissions.
"'We can probably not afford to wait until all the uncertainties
have been resolved before we do act. Time will not make the problem
go away,' Baker told delegates from more than 40 nations to the
newly formed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-01-31/news/mn-1251_1_global-warming
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/31/science/joint-effort-urged-to-guard-climate.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.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list