<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>January 2, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[theguardian]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming">2017
was the hottest year on record without an El Nino, thanks to
global warming </a></b><br>
Climate scientists predicted the rapid rise in global surface
temperatures that we're now seeing<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://youtu.be/GorWMLSPC6I">Video:
1964-2017 global surface temperature data from Nasa, divided into
El Nino (red), La Nina (blue), and neutral (black) years, with
linear trends added.</a> <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/GorWMLSPC6I">https://youtu.be/GorWMLSPC6I</a><br>
In fact, 2017 was the hottest year without an El Nino by a wide
margin - a whopping 0.17 degrees C hotter than 2014, which
previously held that record. Remarkably, 2017 was also hotter than
2015, which at the time was by far the hottest year on record thanks
in part to a strong El Nino event that year.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming</a></font><br>
-<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming#img-3"><br>
Chart of U.S. 2017 Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters</a><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming#img-3">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming#img-3</a><br>
-<br>
[Dana Nuccitelli]<br>
</font><b>It's deja vu all over again</b><br>
Dana Nuccitelli - "I've been writing for the Guardian for almost 5
years now, and every year I've had to write a similar headline or
two":<br>
<b> 2013 was the second-hottest year without an El Nino since
before 1850</b><b><br>
</b><b> Global warming made 2014 a record hot year</b><b><br>
</b><b> Record hot 2015 gave us a glimpse at the future of global
warming</b><b><br>
</b><b> We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight
times</b><b><br>
</b><b> Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year
ever recorded</b><b><br>
</b><b> 2017 is so far the second-hottest year on record thanks
to global warming</b><font size="-1"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming</a><br>
</font><br>
<br>
[theGuardian]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/01/vehicles-climate-change-emissions-trump-administration">Vehicles
are now America's biggest CO2 source but EPA is tearing up
regulations</a></b><br>
Transport overtook power generation for climate-warming emissions in
2017 but the Trump administration is reversing curbs on auto
industry pollution<br>
For the first time in more than 40 years, the largest source of
greenhouse gas pollution in the US isn't electricity production but
transport - cars, trucks, planes, trains and shipping...<br>
In the short term, this new approach risks a flashpoint between the
federal government and California, which has a long-held waiver to
enact vehicle pollution standards in excess of the national
requirements. Twelve other states, including New York and
Pennsylvania, follow California's standards, an alliance that covers
more than 130 million residents and about a third of the US vehicle
market.<br>
A flurry of recent optimistic studies have forecast that, by 2040,
as much as 90% of all cars in the US will be electric. But the
current conundrum is that petroleum-fueled vehicles are cheaper and
seen as more reliable than their electric counterparts by most new
buyers<br>
Nichols said she had been disturbed by signals coming from Pruitt
and other EPA officials that she said show the federal government is
looking to end California's waiver.<br>
"Consumers in the US aren't pushing for electric vehicles to the
extent they are in Europe and unless we take a very different
approach as a country, that doesn't look like it will change soon.<br>
"You will need to see a major change in battery technology to make
it viable. People are becoming more aware and concerned about global
warming, but we aren't there yet. And when you look at the vehicles
being put out by the major car companies, you could argue it's not
an issue for them, either."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/01/vehicles-climate-change-emissions-trump-administration">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/01/vehicles-climate-change-emissions-trump-administration</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Oil Industry History]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming">On
its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil
industry about global warming</a></b><br>
Benjamin Franta<br>
... new documents reveal that American oil writ large was warned of
global warming at its 100th birthday party.<br>
It was a typical November day in New York City. The year: 1959...<br>
...The nuclear weapons physicist Edward Teller had, by 1959, become
ostracized by the scientific community for betraying his colleague
J. Robert Oppenheimer, but he retained the embrace of industry and
government. Teller's task that November fourth was to address the
crowd on "energy patterns of the future," and his words carried an
unexpected warning:<br>
<blockquote>Ladies and gentlemen, I am to talk to you about energy
in the future. I will start by telling you why I believe that the
energy resources of the past must be supplemented. First of all,
these energy resources will run short as we use more and more of
the fossil fuels. But I would [...] like to mention another reason
why we probably have to look for additional fuel supplies. And
this, strangely, is the question of contaminating the atmosphere.
[....] Whenever you burn conventional fuel, you create carbon
dioxide. [....] The carbon dioxide is invisible, it is
transparent, you can't smell it, it is not dangerous to health, so
why should one worry about it?<br>
<br>
Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light
but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the
earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect
[....] It has been calculated that a temperature rise
corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be
sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the
coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable
percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think
that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people
tend to believe.<br>
</blockquote>
After his talk, Teller was asked to "summarize briefly the danger
from increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere in this
century." The physicist, as if considering a numerical estimation
problem, responded: <br>
<blockquote>At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has
risen by 2 per cent over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per
cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [about 360 parts
per million, by Teller's accounting], if we keep on with our
exponential rise in the use of purely conventional fuels. By that
time, there will be a serious additional impediment for the
radiation leaving the earth. Our planet will get a little warmer.
It is hard to say whether it will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit or only
one or 5. <br>
<br>
But when the temperature does rise by a few degrees over the whole
globe, there is a possibility that the icecaps will start melting
and the level of the oceans will begin to rise. Well, I don't know
whether they will cover the Empire State Building or not, but
anyone can calculate it by looking at the map and noting that the
icecaps over Greenland and over Antarctica are perhaps five
thousand feet thick.<br>
</blockquote>
And so, at its hundredth birthday party, American oil was warned of
its civilization-destroying potential... <br>
<br>
How did the petroleum industry respond? Eight years later, on a
cold, clear day in March, Robert Dunlop walked the halls of the U.S.
Congress. The 1967 oil embargo was weeks away, and the Senate was
investigating the potential of electric vehicles. Dunlop, testifying
now as the Chairman of the Board of the American Petroleum
Institute, posed the question, "tomorrow's car: electric or gasoline
powered?" His preferred answer was the latter:<br>
<blockquote>We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the
time a practical electric car can be mass-produced and marketed,
it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution
standpoint. Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have
long since been controlled.<br>
</blockquote>
Dunlop went on to describe progress in controlling carbon monoxide,
nitrous oxide, and hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles. Absent
from his list? The pollutant he had been warned of years before:
carbon dioxide.<br>
We might surmise that the odorless gas simply passed under Robert
Dunlop's nose unnoticed. But less than a year later, the American
Petroleum Institute quietly received a report on air pollution it
had commissioned from the Stanford Research Institute, and its
warning on carbon dioxide was direct: <br>
<blockquote>Significant temperature changes are almost certain to
occur by the year 2000, and these could bring about climatic
changes. [...] there seems to be no doubt that the potential
damage to our environment could be severe. [...] pollutants which
we generally ignore because they have little local effect, CO2 and
submicron particles, may be the cause of serious world-wide
environmental changes. <br>
</blockquote>
Thus, by 1968, American oil held in its hands yet another notice of
its products' world-altering side effects, one affirming that global
warming was not just cause for research and concern, but a reality
needing corrective action: "Past and present studies of CO2 are
detailed," the Stanford Research Institute advised. "What is
lacking, however, is [...] work toward systems in which CO2
emissions would be brought under control."<br>
This early history illuminates the American petroleum industry's
long-running awareness of the planetary warming caused by its
products. Teller's warning, revealed in documentation I found while
searching archives, is another brick in a growing wall of evidence.<br>
In the closing days of those optimistic 1950s, ...the American
Petroleum Institute... was denying the climate science it had been
informed of decades before, attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, and fighting climate policies wherever they arose. <br>
This is a history of choices made, paths not taken, and the fall
from grace of one of the greatest enterprises - oil, the "prime
mover" - ever to tread the earth. Whether it's also a history of
redemption, however partial, remains to be seen.<br>
American oil's awareness of global warming - and its conspiracy of
silence, deceit, and obstruction - goes further than any one
company. It extends beyond (though includes) ExxonMobil. The
industry is implicated to its core by the history of its largest
representative, the American Petroleum Institute.<br>
It is now too late to stop a great deal of change to our planet's
climate and its global payload of disease, destruction, and death.
But we can fight to halt climate change as quickly as possible, and
we can uncover the history of how we got here. There are lessons to
be learned, and there is justice to be served.<br>
<font size="-1">Benjamin Franta (@BenFranta) is a PhD student in
history of science at Stanford University who studies the history
of climate change science and politics. He has a PhD in applied
physics from Harvard University and is a former research fellow at
the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the
Harvard Kennedy School of Government.</font><br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming</a></font><br>
-<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco">Exxon's
Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too</a><br>
Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2
included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including
Exxon, Texaco and Shell<font size="-1"> </font><br>
<br>
<br>
[bad air]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/study-even-legal-air-pollution-is-killing-older-americans/">Study:
Even "Legal" Air Pollution Is Killing Older Americans</a></b><br>
Nathalie Baptiste, MotherJones<br>
People of color, women, and individuals eligible for Medicaid are at
even greater risk. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/16/440646997/dont-take-a-deep-breath-outdoor-pollution-kills-3-3-million-a-year">More
than 3 million people</a> worldwide die prematurely every year
because of air pollution—most from <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/16/440646997/dont-take-a-deep-breath-outdoor-pollution-kills-3-3-million-a-year">cardiovascular
diseases</a>, respiratory illnesses, and lung cancer. In the
United States, the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act">Clean
Air Act</a> was signed into law in 1970 to regulate air pollution
and create air quality standards that protect human health. But
according to a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2667069?redirect=true">new
study </a>in the Journal of the American Medical Association, for
some Americans, especially those aged 65 and older, those standards
may be inadequate.<br>
"We found that the mortality rate increases almost linearly as air
pollution increases," Francesca Dominici, senior author of the study
and co-director of the Harvard Data Science Initiative, said in a
press release.<br>
Researchers studied more than 22 million deaths among Medicare
recipients—the federal health insurance program for Americans aged
65 and up—from 2000 to 2012. In reviewing data from the US Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services and comparing it with air
pollution data in zip codes where individuals died, they found a
direct correlation between higher mortality rates and higher levels
of <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM">fine
inhalable matter known as (PM2.5),</a> small particles that can be
made up of hundreds different chemicals that can be emitted from
cars or from construction sites, and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution-and-your-patients-health/what-ozone">ozone,
a harmful gas</a>. .. <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/study-even-legal-air-pollution-is-killing-older-americans/">http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/study-even-legal-air-pollution-is-killing-older-americans/</a></font><br>
-<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM">What
is PM, and how does it get into the air?</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM">https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM</a><br>
-<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.main">Air Now</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.main">https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.main</a><br>
-<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act">Summary
of the Clean Air Act</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act</a><br>
-<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2667069?redirect=true"><br>
Association of Short-term Exposure to Air Pollution With Mortality
in Older Adults</a><br>
<b>Question</b> What is the association between short-term exposure
to air pollution below current air quality standards and all-cause
mortality?<br>
<b>Finding </b> In a case-crossover study of more than 22 million
deaths, each 10-μg/m3 daily increase in fine particulate matter and
10-parts-per-billion daily increase in warm-season ozone exposures
were associated with a statistically significant increase of 1.42
and 0.66 deaths per 1 million persons at risk per day, respectively.<br>
Meaning Day-to-day changes in fine particulate matter and ozone
exposures were significantly associated with higher risk of
all-cause mortality at levels below current air quality standards,
suggesting that those standards may need to be reevaluated.<br>
<b>Importance </b> The US Environmental Protection Agency is
required to reexamine its National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) every 5 years, but evidence of mortality risk is lacking at
air pollution levels below the current daily NAAQS in unmonitored
areas and for sensitive subgroups.<br>
<b>Objective </b>To estimate the association between short-term
exposures to ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone, and
at levels below the current daily NAAQS, and mortality in the
continental United States.<br>
<b>Design, Setting, and Participants</b> Case-crossover design and
conditional logistic regression to estimate the association between
short-term exposures to PM2.5 and ozone (mean of daily exposure on
the same day of death and 1 day prior) and mortality in 2-pollutant
models. The study included the entire Medicare population from
January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2012, residing in 39 182 zip codes.<br>
<b>Exposures </b> Daily PM2.5 and ozone levels in a 1-km × 1-km grid
were estimated using published and validated air pollution
prediction models based on land use, chemical transport modeling,
and satellite remote sensing data. From these gridded exposures,
daily exposures were calculated for every zip code in the United
States. Warm-season ozone was defined as ozone levels for the months
April to September of each year.<br>
<b>Main Outcomes and Measures </b> All-cause mortality in the entire
Medicare population from 2000 to 2012.<br>
<b>Results</b> During the study period, there were 22 433 862
million case days and 76 143 209 control days. Of all case and
control days, 93.6% had PM2.5 levels below 25 μg/m3, during which
95.2% of deaths occurred (21 353 817 of 22 433 862), and 91.1% of
days had ozone levels below 60 parts per billion, during which 93.4%
of deaths occurred (20 955 387 of 22 433 862). The baseline daily
mortality rates were 137.33 and 129.44 (per 1 million persons at
risk per day) for the entire year and for the warm season,
respectively. Each short-term increase of 10 μg/m3 in PM2.5
(adjusted by ozone) and 10 parts per billion (10−9) in warm-season
ozone (adjusted by PM2.5) were statistically significantly
associated with a relative increase of 1.05% (95% CI, 0.95%-1.15%)
and 0.51% (95% CI, 0.41%-0.61%) in daily mortality rate,
respectively. Absolute risk differences in daily mortality rate were
1.42 (95% CI, 1.29-1.56) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.78) per 1 million
persons at risk per day. There was no evidence of a threshold in the
exposure-response relationship.<br>
<b>Conclusions and Relevance</b> In the US Medicare population from
2000 to 2012, short-term exposures to PM2.5 and warm-season ozone
were significantly associated with increased risk of mortality. This
risk occurred at levels below current national air quality
standards, suggesting that these standards may need to be
reevaluated.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2667069?redirect=true">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2667069?redirect=true</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<i>[High Geek Factor warning]</i><br>
[RealClimate from April 2017 - <i>soon to be updated</i> ]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/">Climate
model projections compared to observations</a></b><br>
Since we have been periodically posting updates (e.g. <a
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/">2009</a>,
<a
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/">2010</a>,
<a
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/">2011</a>,
<a
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/">2012</a>,
<a
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/">2015</a>,
<a
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/">2016</a>)
of model output comparisons to observations across a range of
variables, we have now set up this page as a permanent placeholder
for the most up-to-date comparisons. We include surface temperature
projections from 1981, 1988, CMIP3, CMIP5, and satellite products
(MSU) from CMIP5, and <b>we will update this on an annual basis</b>,
or as new observational products become available. For each
comparison, we note the last update date. <br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/</a></font><br>
-<br>
[See also from April 2012]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/">Evaluating
a 1981 temperature projection</a></b><b><a><br>
</a></b>Sometimes it helps to take a step back from the everyday
pressures of research (falling ill helps). It was in this way we
stumbled across Hansen et al (1981) (pdf). In 1981 the first author
of this post was in his first year at university and the other just
entered the KNMI after finishing his masters. Global warming was not
yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate
variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was
unnoticed at that time by the second author. It turns out to be a
very interesting read.<br>
They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover
radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the
main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and
vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of
aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Obviously climate science
was a mature field even then: the concepts and conclusions have not
changed all that much. Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well
known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.<br>
Next they attribute global mean temperature trend 1880-1980 to CO2,
volcanic and solar forcing. Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives
a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time
when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean
temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they
confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2
emissions. They assume that no action will be taken before the
global warming signal will be significant in the late 1990s, so the
different energy-use scenarios only start diverging after that.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Caribbean community]<br>
<b><a
href="http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/caricom-moving-to-create-world-8217-s-first-climate-resilient-region_121376?profile=1373">Caricom
moving to create world's first climate-resilient region</a></b><br>
PORT AU PRINCE, Haiti (CMC) — Incoming chairman of the Caribbean
Community (Caricom), Haiti's President Jovenel Moïse, says the
regional grouping is moving towards creating the world's first
climate-resilient region this year.<br>
"2018 dawns for the Caribbean Community with the prospect of seizing
an opportunity out of a crisis," said Moïse in his New Year's
message.<br>
"As we begin the rebuilding process after the devastating hurricanes
of last September, as well as Hurricane Matthew, which pounded the
region on October 3-4, 2016, we do so with the aim of creating the
first climate-resilient region in the world.<br>
"The absolute necessity to create a climate-smart region is clear
given the effects of climate change, which have brought us droughts,
mega hurricanes, heavy floods and unusual weather patterns, all of
which adversely affect our development," he added.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/caricom-moving-to-create-world-8217-s-first-climate-resilient-region_121376?profile=1373">http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/caricom-moving-to-create-world-8217-s-first-climate-resilient-region_121376?profile=1373</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[reposting clip]<br>
<b><a
href="https://phys.org/news/2018-01-significantly-drier-world.html">Study
predicts a significantly drier world at 2 C</a></b><br>
Over a quarter of the world's land could become significantly drier
if global warming reaches 2C - according to new research from an
international team including the University of East Anglia.<br>
The change would cause an increased threat of drought and wildfires.<br>
But limiting global warming to under 1.5C would dramatically reduce
the fraction of the Earth's surface that undergoes such changes.<br>
The findings, published today in Nature Climate Change, are the
result of an international collaboration led by the Southern
University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen China and
UEA.<br>
Aridity is a measure of the dryness of the land surface, obtained
from combining precipitation and evaporation. The research team
studied projections from 27 global climate models to identify the
areas of the world where aridity will substantially change when
compared to the year-to-year variations they experience now, as
global warming reaches 1.5C and 2C above pre-industrial levels....<br>
More information: Keeping global warming within 1.5 degree C
constrains emergence of aridification, Nature Climate Change (2018).
nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0034-4 <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://phys.org/news/2018-01-significantly-drier-world.html">https://phys.org/news/2018-01-significantly-drier-world.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/theres-global-warming-and-its-snowing-105637955899">This
Day in Climate History January 2, 2014</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
MSNBC's Chris Hayes and climate scientist Michael Mann point out
the<br>
absolute stupidity of the right-wing claim that snow disproves
climate<br>
change.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/right-mocks-rescued-climate-scientists-105626691902">http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/right-mocks-rescued-climate-scientists-105626691902</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/theres-global-warming-and-its-snowing-105637955899">http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/theres-global-warming-and-its-snowing-105637955899</a></font><br>
<font size="+1"><i><br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html">Archive
of Daily Global Warming News</a> </i></font><i><br>
</i><span class="moz-txt-link-freetext"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a></span><font
size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i><br>
</i></font></i></font><font size="+1"><i> <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="a%20href=%22mailto:contact@theClimate.Vote%22">Send
email to subscribe</a> to news clippings. </i></font>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><small> </small><small><b>** Privacy and Security: </b>
This is a text-only mailing that carries no images which may
originate from remote servers. </small><small> Text-only
messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
</small><small> </small><br>
<small> By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used
for democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes. </small><br>
<small>To subscribe, email: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
with subject: subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject:
unsubscribe</small><br>
<small> Also you</small><font size="-1"> may
subscribe/unsubscribe at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a></font><small>
</small><br>
<small> </small><small>Links and headlines assembled and
curated by Richard Pauli</small><small> for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels.</small><small> L</small><small>ist
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list. <br>
</small></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>