[TheClimate.Vote] July 3, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*July 3, 2020*/

[notice money flow]
*Banks' Vows to Restrict Loans for Arctic Oil and Gas Development May Be 
Largely Symbolic*
Financial institutions rarely provide such loans and with oil prices at 
rock bottom, the Arctic is not a priority for the energy industry...
- -
European and Australian banks were among the first to adopt policies 
restricting lending, with Goldman Sachs the first American bank to 
announce one in December. According to Rainforest Action Network, at 
least 20 banks have now implemented some form of restrictions, six of 
which include broader corporate-wide limitations for companies operating 
in the Arctic.

For the banks, it may have been an easy sell.

Oil prices had stagnated after crashing in 2014, and fracking was 
surging in Texas, North Dakota and other states, leaving the Arctic as a 
side story for much of the industry. Even before the campaign, one 
Goldman Sachs analyst told CNBC in 2017, "We think there is almost no 
rationale for Arctic exploration," noting the abundance of other, 
cheaper options for growth, such as U.S. shale fields.

Citigroup said in its announcement last month that it had never provided 
the type of project-specific financing it would now prohibit, and Wells 
Fargo said in its policy that it had actually halted such lending two 
years earlier as "part of a larger 2018 risk-based decision."

Meanwhile, the Trump administration's push for drilling in the Arctic 
refuge has stalled...
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052020/oil-gas-banks-arctic-drilling-coronavirus



[Climate models aid understanding]
*Some new climate models are projecting extreme warming. Are they correct?*
Recent climate models are 'running hot,' projecting catastrophic global 
warming. Puzzled scientists are weighing whether the models need 
correcting or whether severe warming is a real threat.By Jeff Berardelli 
| Wednesday, July 1, 2020
Jeff Berardelli | Wednesday, July 1, 2020
or the past year, some of the most up-to-date computer models from the 
world's top climate modeling groups have been "running hot" - projecting 
that global warming may be even more extreme than earlier thought. Data 
from some of the model runs has been confounding scientists because it 
challenges decades of consistent projections.

"It is concerning, as it increases the risk of more severe climate 
change impacts," explains Dr. Andrew Gettelman, a cloud microphysics 
scientist from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, 
Colorado.

As a result, there's been a real urgency to answer this important 
question in climate science: Are there processes in some new models that 
need correcting, or is this enhanced warming a real threat?

After months of contemplation and study after study, the picture is 
becoming much more clear, and providing something of a breather. Along 
with those studies, an unprecedented international research mission, led 
by NOAA and named ATOMIC, aims to provide climate science with the most 
sophisticated insights yet into why some models point to more warming.
*International effort to evaluate climate models*
For the past 25 years the international community has been evaluating 
and comparing the world's most sophisticated climate models produced by 
various teams at universities, research centers, and government 
agencies. The effort is organized by the World Climate Research 
Programme under the United Nations World Meteorological Organization.

Climate models are complicated computer programs composed of millions of 
lines of code that calculate the physical properties and interactions 
between the main climate forces like the atmosphere, oceans, and solar 
input. But models also go a lot further, incorporating other systems 
like ice sheets, forests, and the biosphere, to name a few. The models 
are then used to simulate the real-world climate system and project how 
certain changes, like added pollution or land-use changes, will alter 
the climate.

Every few years there is a new comprehensive international evaluation 
called the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). In the sixth 
such effort, known as CMIP6 and now under way, experts are reviewing 
about 100 models.

Information gleaned from this effort will act as a scientific foundation 
for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) next 
major assessment report, scheduled for release in 2021. The goal of the 
report - the sixth in 30 years - is to inform the international 
community about how much the climate has changed, and, importantly, how 
much change can be expected in coming decades.

*A conundrum emerges*
Over the past year, the CMIP6 collection of models being reviewed threw 
researchers an unexpected curveball: a significant number of the climate 
model runs showed substantially more global warming than previous model 
versions had projected. If accurate, the international climate goals 
would be nearly impossible to achieve, and there would be significantly 
more extreme impacts worldwide.

A foundational experiment in every report addresses "sensitivity": If 
you double levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) that were in the air before 
the Industrial Revolution, how much warming do the models show? This 
doubling is not expected for a few more decades, but it is a quick way 
to communicate the critical role of greenhouse gases in changing the 
climate.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 35% since the 1800s 
because of the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, global temperatures 
have already increased by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit.

In the first IPCC assessment report, published in 1990, the answer to 
that question about the impact of doubling carbon dioxide gave a fairly 
wide range of results - between 2.7-8 degrees F of global warming. Since 
then, four more assessments issued six to seven years apart reached 
nearly the exact same conclusion on sensitivity.

But that sensitivity may, for the first time, change significantly in 
next year's assessment. Why? Because starting last year, numerous models 
in the CMIP6 collection displayed even bigger spikes in temperature upon 
doubling of CO2 concentrations. We're in serious trouble if the climate 
sensitivity falls in the mid or upper range of the previous assessments. 
But if the new, higher estimates are correct, the impacts on 
civilization would be catastrophic...
*New and encouraging evidence is emerging*
At first, scientists were uncertain whether the new model runs were on 
to something, so the international modeling community dug in to produce 
multiple studies. The results are not yet conclusive, but a gradual 
collective sigh of relief seems to be materializing.

"Evidence is emerging from multiple directions that the models which 
show the greatest warming in the CMIP6 ensemble are likely too warm," 
explains Dr. Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for 
Space Studies.

For example, a study released April 28 evaluated the past performance of 
the models making up the CMIP6 ensemble. The team assigned weights to 
each model based upon historical performance of their warming 
projections, weighing the poorer performing models less. By doing so, 
both the mean warming and the range of warming scenarios in the CMIP6 
ensemble decreased, meaning the warmest models were the ones with weaker 
historical performance. This result supports a finding that a subset of 
the models are too warm.

*Cloud science 'isn't rocket science ... It's much, much harder than that.*
That conclusion is supported by another new study evaluating one 
particular model - the Community Earth System Model (CESM2) - that 
showed greater warming. Using that model, the researchers simulated the 
climate in the early Eocene era, about 50 million years ago, when 
rainforests thrived in the Arctic and Antarctic. The CESM2 simulated a 
historical climate that seems way too warm compared with what is known 
about that era from geological data, indicating that the model is likely 
also too warm in its future projections.

Two other recent studies of the CMIP6 models being evaluated use clever 
analysis methods to narrow the range of future warming projections and 
also reduce the projected warming of the CMIP6 models by 10 to 15%.

Through the intensive research spurred by the CMIP6 climate-sensitivity 
curveball, scientists have been able to turn a confounding challenge 
into a confidence builder, providing even greater certainty than they 
had before in both the abilities of the climate science community and in 
the computer models used. Moreover, the experience has helped unearth 
uncertainties remaining in the modeling process.

Experts conclude much of this uncertainty probably lies in the 
complexity of clouds. "We have been looking as a community at why the 
models with greater warming are doing what they are doing - and it's 
tied to cloud feedbacks in the southern mid-latitudes mostly," explains 
Schmidt.

In fact,  a new study addressing the increased sensitivity was published 
in Science Advances stating, "Cloud feedbacks and cloud-aerosol 
interactions are the most likely contributors to the high values and 
increased range of ECS [sensitivity] in CMIP6."

*Understanding the complexity of clouds*
It's long been known in climate modeling circles that cloud processes 
and interactions are a potential weak link for climate modeling. That 
reality has been brought front and center by the urgent challenges posed 
during this CMIP6 evaluation period, but the current evaluation of 
models also provides an opportunity for discovery and improvement.

Cloud complexity comes from the reality that clouds have a multitude of 
sizes, altitudes, and textures. Some clouds cool Earth by providing 
shade, reflecting sunlight back into space. Others act like a blanket, 
trapping heat and warming the world.

What happens with clouds drives what happens to our climate … and to our 
planet.

Given that about 70% of the globe is covered by clouds at any given 
time, it's no surprise that they play an integral role in regulating the 
climate. The challenge is to figure out which types of clouds will 
increase, which will decrease, and what the net effect will be on 
cooling or warming as the climate changes.

One study last year reached an alarming conclusion: Left unchecked, the 
release of CO2 into the atmosphere may lead to a tipping point where 
shallow low clouds disappear - leading to runaway, catastrophic warming 
of nearly 15 degrees F. While scientists see that outcome as only a 
remote possibility, it drives home the urgent need to better understand 
clouds.

"We have a saying at NOAA: It isn't rocket science - it's much, much 
harder than that," quips Dr. Chris Fairall, ATOMIC's lead investigator. 
"One of the major problems for modeling is there is not clean separation 
of scales." The photo below is one that Fairall took from the NOAA P-3 
aircraft.

"Think about trying to code up a model that can produce this," Fairall 
muses. "Huge cloud systems are made up of a spectrum of clouds from the 
size of Kansas to ones that fit in the trunk of your Volkswagen."

In the real world and the simulated model world, cloud formation depends 
partially on how moisture interacts with aerosols, tiny floating 
particles in the air. Aerosols are fine particles like smoke, sea spray, 
and pollutants. These tiny dust-like particles act as condensation 
nuclei, allowing gaseous water vapor to turn into cloud droplets.

The interplay between clouds, aerosols, and a warming climate in a model 
affects how much of a cooling or warming influence that model calculates.

Recently a new international dataset of emissions - including changes in 
the concentrations of aerosols - has been introduced into some climate 
models with improved cloud physics. As a result, some scientists 
conclude, the changes have affected cloud dynamics in these models, 
leading to additional warming.

But despite the increased confidence that a subset of the CMIP6 models 
are likely overdoing warming projections, Gettelman believes there is at 
least some merit to the warmer projections because this generation of 
models has more sophisticated cloud physics.

So in order to get to the bottom of cloud complexity and improve these 
vital model projections, the international community is collaborating on 
a massive research project.

*Investigating the secrets of clouds*
To address the urgent question about the dynamics and role of clouds in 
a warming world, NOAA and European partners launched their ongoing 
research effort unprecedented in scale. The U.S. contribution, ATOMIC - 
short for Atlantic Tradewind Ocean-Atmosphere Mesoscale Interaction 
Campaign - is an international science mission that was featured 
recently on "CBS This Morning: Saturday."
According to the highly regarded climate site Carbon Brief, which did an 
independent evaluation of the model suite, 30% of models showed a 
significant increase in their sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
"The research that originally motivated this project was an analysis 
that showed that the single biggest factor that separated the CMIP 
models into big warming and not so big warming was treatment of shallow 
convective clouds," Fairall explains.

The best places to find shallow convective clouds are tropical waters. 
So in February, a group of scientists from more than 40 partner 
institutions from countries including the U.S., Germany, France, and the 
U.K. painstakingly probed hundreds of miles of tropical air and sea near 
the island of Barbados. They used every tool in their arsenals: five 
research aircraft, four large fact-finding vessels, buoys, radar and 
futuristic air and ocean drones to examine the makeup of these 
complicated and crucial clouds.

Scientists expect that the vast, concurrent and diverse types of 
observations captured in ATOMIC will allow them to improve how clouds 
are represented in climate models, enabling them to make more precise 
predictions of future climate and impacts.

Fairall says the data from ATOMIC is ideal for such assessments, and he 
expects the findings will inform the upcoming 2021 comprehensive IPCC 
report. With the data from ATOMIC still being analyzed, scientists have 
not yet reached conclusions.

On the whole, however, these unprecedented research efforts to 
troubleshoot discrepancies in the latest models have already borne 
critical fruit. They are providing scientists with more insights, 
illustrating the crucial value of the scientific method, lending 
credibility to the capability of climate models, and helping build more 
confidence within the climate science community.

Jeff Berardelli is CBS News Meteorologist and Climate Specialist in New 
York City, and a regular contributor to Yale Climate Connections.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/some-new-climate-models-are-projecting-extreme-warming-are-they-correct/


[Understanding climate models]
*Clouds the Likely Cause of Increased Global Warming in Latest 
Generation of Climate Models*
By NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH JUNE 27, 2020

New representations of clouds are making models more sensitive to carbon 
dioxide.

As scientists work to determine why some of the latest climate models 
suggest the future could be warmer than previously thought, a new study 
indicates the reason is likely related to challenges simulating the 
formation and evolution of clouds.

The new research, published in Science Advances, gives an overview of 39 
updated models that are part of a major international climate endeavor, 
the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). 
The models will also be analyzed for the upcoming sixth assessment 
report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Compared with older models, a subset of these updated models has shown a 
higher sensitivity to carbon dioxide - that is, more warming for a given 
concentration of the greenhouse gas -though a few showed lower 
sensitivity as well.  The end result is a greater range of model 
responses than any preceding generation of models, dating back to the 
early 1990s.  If the models on the high end are correct and Earth is 
truly more sensitive to carbon dioxide than scientists had thought, the 
future could also be much warmer than previously projected. But it's 
also possible that the updates made to the models between the last 
intercomparison project and this one are causing or exposing errors in 
their results.

In the new paper, the authors sought to systematically compare the CMIP6 
models with previous generations and to catalog the likely reasons for 
the expanded range of sensitivity.

"Many research groups have already published papers analyzing possible 
reasons why the climate sensitivity of their models changed when they 
were updated," said Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National 
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and lead author of the new study. 
"Our goal was to look for any themes that were emerging, especially with 
the high-sensitivity models. The thing that came up again and again is 
that cloud feedbacks in general, and the interaction between clouds and 
tiny particles called aerosols in particular, seem to be contributing to 
higher sensitivity."

The research was funded in part by the National Science Foundation, 
which is NCAR's sponsor. Other supporters include the U.S. Department of 
Energy, the Helmholtz Society, and Deutsches Klima Rechen Zentrum 
(Germany's climate computing center).

*Evaluating model sensitivity*
Researchers have traditionally evaluated climate model sensitivity using 
two different metrics. The first, which has been in use since the late 
1970s, is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). It measures the 
temperature increase after atmospheric carbon dioxide is instantaneously 
doubled from preindustrial levels and the model is allowed to run until 
the climate stabilizes.

Through the decades, the range of ECS values has stayed remarkably 
consistent - somewhere around 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1 
degrees Fahrenheit) - even as models have become significantly more 
complex. For example, the models included in the previous phase of CMIP 
last decade, known as CMIP5, had ECS values ranging from 2.1 to 4.7C 
(3.6 to 8.5F).

The CMIP6 models, however, have a range from 1.8 to 5.6C (3.2 to 10F), 
widening the spread from CMIP5 on both the low and high ends. The 
NCAR-based Community Earth System Model, version 2 (CESM2) is one of the 
higher-sensitivity models, with an ECS value of 5.2C.

Model developers have been busy picking their models apart during the 
last year to understand why ECS has changed. For many groups, the 
answers appear to come down to clouds and aerosols. Cloud processes 
unfold on very fine scales, which has made them challenging to 
accurately simulate in global-scale models in the past. In CMIP6, 
however, many modeling groups added more complex representations of 
these processes.

The new cloud capabilities in some models have produced better 
simulations in certain ways. The clouds in CESM2, for example, look more 
realistic when compared to observations. But clouds have a complicated 
relationship with climate warming - certain types of clouds in some 
locations reflect more sunlight, cooling the surface, while others can 
have the opposite effect, trapping heat.

Aerosols, which can be emitted naturally from volcanoes and other 
sources as well as by human activity, also reflect sunlight and have a 
cooling effect. But they interact with clouds too, changing their 
formation and brightness and, therefore, their ability to heat or cool 
the surface.

Many modeling groups have determined that adding this new complexity 
into the latest version of their models is having an impact on ECS. 
Meehl said this isn't surprising.

"When you put more detail into the models, there are more degrees of 
freedom and more possible different outcomes," he said. "Earth system 
models today are quite complex, with many components interacting in ways 
that are sometimes unanticipated. When you run these models, you're 
going to get behaviors you wouldn't see in more simplified models."

*An unmeasurable quantity*
ECS is meant to tell scientists something about how Earth will respond 
to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The result, however, cannot be 
checked against the real world.

"ECS is an unmeasurable quantity," Meehl said. "It's a rudimentary 
metric, created when models were much simpler. It's still useful, but it 
isn't the only way to understand how much rising greenhouse gases will 
affect the climate."

One reason scientists continue to use ECS is because it allows them to 
compare current models to the earliest climate models. But researchers 
have come up with other metrics for looking at climate sensitivity along 
the way, including a model's transient climate response (TCR). To 
measure that, modelers increase carbon dioxide by 1% a year, compounded, 
until carbon dioxide is doubled. While this measure is also idealized, 
it may give a more realistic view of temperature response, at least on 
the shorter-term horizon of the next several decades.

In the new paper, Meehl and his colleagues also compared how TCR has 
changed over time since its first use in the 1990s. The CMIP5 models had 
a TCR range of 1.1 to 2.5C, while the range of the CMIP6 models only 
increased slightly, from 1.3 to 3.0C. Overall, the change in average TCR 
warming was nearly imperceptible, from 1.8 to 2.0C (3.2 to 3.6F).

The change in TCR range is more modest than with ECS, which could mean 
that the CMIP6 models may not perform that differently from CMIP5 models 
when simulating temperature over the next several decades.

But even with the larger range of ECS, the average value of that metric 
"did not increase a huge amount," Meehl said, only rising from 3.2 to 3.7C.

"The high end is higher but the low end is lower, so the average values 
haven't shifted too significantly," he said.

Meehl also noted that the increased range of ECS could have a positive 
effect on science by spurring more research into cloud processes and 
cloud-aerosol interactions, including field campaigns to collect better 
observations of how these interactions play out in the real world.

"Cloud-aerosol interactions are on the bleeding edge of our 
comprehension of how the climate system works, and it's a challenge to 
model what we don't understand," Meehl said. "These modelers are pushing 
the boundaries of human understanding, and I am hopeful that this 
uncertainty will motivate new science."

Reference: "Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and 
transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models" by Gerald 
A. Meehl, Catherine A. Senior, Veronika Eyring, Gregory Flato, 
Jean-Francois Lamarque, Ronald J. Stouffer, Karl E. Taylor and Manuel 
Schlund, 24 June 2020, Science Advances.
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aba1981



[video may help with understanding models]
*Climate extremes in a warming climate: 1.5C, 2C and higher*
Nov 24, 2019
Vetenskapsakademien
Professor Sonia I. Seneviratne, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate 
Science,
Land-Climate Dynamics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Introduction by 
Professor Deliang Chen, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. From: 
Extreme weather events in a warming world - open key note lectures, 
2019-11-11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwqB3-3dV4



[Follow the Money]
*Banks Love Renewable Energy, But Their Boardrooms Are Still Linked With 
Fossil Fuels Corporations...*
The analysis by Bloomberg reported that the world's largest banks issued 
billions in loans to sustainable businesses and have even taken steps to 
limit funding for some of the world's worst polluters, but this 
mentality hasn't reached the boardroom. Many executives who sit on the 
boards at 20 of the leading banks in both the U.S. and Europe have more 
ties to the fossil fuel industry than not. Bloomberg analyzed past and 
present professional affiliations of over 600 executives and directors 
at these banks, and the findings are a bit alarming.

73 of those analyzed held a position at some point in time with one or 
more of the largest corporate greenhouse gas polluters -- 16 were 
connected to oil or refining companies. These same 20 banks have helped 
create $1.4 trillion of debt financing for fossil fuel producers since 
the signing of the Paris agreement in 2015...
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/07/01/banks-love-renewable-energy-but-their-boardrooms-are-still-linked-with-fossil-fuels-corporations/


[Netflix]
*ZAC EFRON LOOKS FOR SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN NEW NETFLIX SERIES*
Zac Efron is starring in his own documentary series on Netflix, 'Down to 
Earth', which is all about exploring solutions to climate change around 
the world.

The actor might be known for his all singing, all dancing role in the 
High School Musical films, but he's taking a break from Hollywood to 
visit eco communities in search of green ideas and inspiration.

"We're trying to find some new perspectives on some very old problems," 
he says in the trailer, adding, "we need to start rethinking how we 
consume everything, from our food, to our power."

In the series, Efron travels around the world with wellness expert Darin 
Olien to learn from various cultures and explore healthier, more 
sustainable ways of life. Granted, some of what he comes across may be 
more weird than wonderful, but it all comes under the umbrella of 
greener solutions to living.

In one scene, the actor looks at community fartbags, which are used to 
harness renewable sources of energy. In another, he is presented with a 
meal which has been smoked in poo, or as the chef calls it 
"dung-smoked", to which he replies, "it doesn't taste like dung"...
The adventurous pair visit France, Puerto Rico, London, Iceland, Costa 
Rica, Peru and Sardinia on their journey.

This isn't the first time the actor has been involved in an 
environmentally themed show either. Back in April, Efron hosted the 
Great Global Cleanup, for the Discovery Channel, in celebration of Earth 
Day 2020.

The show put the spotlight on the next generation of climate activists 
and what they are doing to clean up the planet, from next-level 
recycling to innovative waste management.

In an Instagram post at the time, he wrote:

"Happy Earth Day! I have always been in awe of the magic and mystery of 
Mother Nature. Exploring the unknown has always been a true passion in 
my life and now, more than ever, I realize how important it is to take 
care of our planet, our people and every living thing we share it with. 
Please be safe, be healthy and be kind to one another. Join us tonight 
for the #greatglobalcleanup."

'Down to Earth' will be released on Netflix on 10th July.
https://www.euronews.com/living/2020/07/01/zac-efron-looks-for-solutions-to-climate-change-in-new-netflix-series



[a classic video lesson]
*How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?*
potholer54 channel is at https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/featured
The main purpose of this channel is to explain in simple terms the 
conclusions of scientific research, and correct some of the unsourced 
crap we hear from bloggers, politicians and the media. I am a former 
science journalist (see the "Who I am" video) with a degree in geology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugwqXKHLrGk



[Pay attention to the fundamentals]
*The Basics of Climate Science | Essentials of Environmental Science*
Jul 2, 2020
Hot Mess
Welcome to our new special series about the essentials of environmental 
science.
Like this video? SUBSCRIBE to Hot Mess! - http://bit.ly/hotmess_sub

A series on this channel talking about the environment without focusing 
on the era-defining change happening to our planet right now wouldn't 
make any sense. Climate Change is after all, the hot mess we all find 
ourselves in.

Climate is the long-term, average weather over a particular region. It's 
the typical patterns of temperature, precipitation, wind and how those 
change seasonally throughout the year.

But what does that actually mean? Let's take a trip to a few biomes and 
compare what climate looks like around the world. We're going to the 
tropical rainforest of Brazil, the savanna of Mozambique, the desert in 
Saudi Arabia, and the tundra of Canada.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWSY-O5B0mg



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - July 3, 2009 *

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announces her resignation from  office; 
shortly thereafter, she sets herself up as a right-wing crusader against 
climate legislation.

http://youtu.be/kM0ZbNA8_ro
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/20/sarah-palin/palin-flips-her-support-cap-and-trade/
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20200703/b5e4af03/attachment.html>