<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>July 20, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[one of many locations]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://weather.com/news/news/2018-07-18-sweden-wildfires-norway-finland-record-heat-drought">Sweden
Wildfires Most Serious in Recent Times Aggravated By
Record-Smashing Heat, Ongoing Drought With No End in Sight</a></b><br>
Dozens of wildfires are burning in Sweden, prompting a call for help
from the EU.<br>
Much of Scandinavia is suffering through a record-smashing heat
wave.<br>
There is no end in sight to this heat wave.<br>
At least 40 wildfires were burning in parts of Sweden Wednesday, the
Local Sweden reported, prompting evacuations in the Swedish counties
of Dalarna, Gävleborg and Jamtland.<br>
A pair of Italian planes and eight Norwegian helicopters were
assisting firefighting efforts, and Sweden's Civil Contingencies
Agency requested more aerial assistance from the European Union in
what they told the Local Sweden was the nation's most serious
wildfire situation of modern times.<br>
This is happening during a heat wave that is smashing some all-time
records across parts of Scandinavia.<br>
Kvikkjokk, a village in northern Sweden just north of the Arctic
Circle, topped out at 32.5 degrees Celsius, just above 90 degrees
Fahrenheit, setting their all-time record high, according to
climatologist and world records expert Maximiliano Hererra.<br>
Sweden's most serious rash of wildfires in recent history has
prompted a call for help from the European Union amid a
record-smashing Scandinavian heat wave that shows no signs of
letting up.<br>
Wednesday, the Kevo observation station in northern Finland set an
all-time record for Lapland, reaching 92 degrees, according to the
Finnish Meteorological Institute.<br>
Downtown Helsinki, Finland, topped the 30-degree Celsius mark – 86
degrees Fahrenheit – for the first time in eight years, according to
MeteoFrance meteorologist Etienne Kapikian.<br>
In Norway, an all-time record for the northern Norwegian county of
Troms was reached Wednesday when Bardufoss soared to 92.3 degrees
Wednesday.<br>
Tuesday, the village of Tana Bru, Norway, at roughly 70 degrees
north latitude – just a tad farther south than Utqiagvik, Alaska
(formerly Barrow) – topped 86 degrees.<br>
According to Hererra, all-time record highs have been set in 14
locations in Norway, 10 locations in Finland and three locations in
Sweden.<br>
Hot, Dry Since May<br>
This heat wave is just the latest episode of what's been an
exceptionally hot, dry late spring and summer so far in northern
Europe.<br>
Since May, an expansive high-pressure ridge aloft has stretched
across most of northern Europe, from Ireland and the U.K. to
Scandinavia.<br>
This blocking high has diverted rain well south over southern
Europe, and its sinking air has inhibited rain over northern Europe
during that time.<br>
Europe had its warmest May and second-warmest June in continental
records dating to 1910, according to NOAA's monthly global climate
summaries.<br>
This has led to worsening drought from Scandinavia to the Baltic
countries, Poland, Germany, the U.K. and Ireland, according to the
Copernicus European Drought Observatory.<br>
The first half of summer – June 1 through July 16 – was the driest
in modern records for the U.K., according to the U.K. Met Office.<br>
Visby, Sweden, on the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, picked up
a mere 1.7 millimeters – 0.07 inches – of rain in May, their driest
dating to 1859, according to Sweden's Meteorological and
Hydrological Institutes.<br>
After a brief breather in the heat and some rainfall this weekend,
another upper-level ridge of high pressure is forecast to intensify
over Scandinavia, northern Europe and northwestern Russia next week,
possibly persisting into early August.<br>
This also means the northern European drought is likely to worsen
over the next few weeks, with the danger of additional wildfires.<br>
Jonathan Erdman is a senior meteorologist at weather.com...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://weather.com/news/news/2018-07-18-sweden-wildfires-norway-finland-record-heat-drought">https://weather.com/news/news/2018-07-18-sweden-wildfires-norway-finland-record-heat-drought</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[BBC reports]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44875508">Slowing
Gulf Stream current to boost warming for 20 years</a></b><br>
By Matt McGrath<br>
The prospect of the Gulf Stream slowing down and even stopping
altogether has worried many experts in recent years.<br>
Some believed that this would cause a rapid cooling around the world
with resulting global chaos.<br>
But a new study finds the Gulf Stream go-slow will have a
significant impact on planetary temperatures, but not in a chilled
out way.<br>
The Gulf Stream is an ocean current that keeps the UK warmer than it
would be given its latitude alone.<br>
Researchers say a slower current will carry less heat down to the
deep oceans meaning more will enter the atmosphere.<br>
Worries over the fate of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning
Circulation (Amoc), of which the Gulf Stream is part, were
graphically illustrated in the 2004 film, The Day After Tomorrow.<br>
It focused on a sudden collapse of the Amoc caused by global warming
leading to a disastrous freezing and the dawning of a new ice age.<br>
So much for Hollywood - the reality according to the corresponding
author of this new study is very different.<br>
"The headlines have said that the Gulf Stream is collapsing and the
Ice Age is coming sooner than scientists think," Prof Ka-Kit Tung
from the University of Washington told BBC News.<br>
- - - - -<br>
<b>It works like this - The warm waters from tropical regions are
carried up to the North Atlantic where the current sinks them deep
into the oceans, with cooler waters then returning south in their
stead.</b><br>
<br>
When the Amoc current moves faster, more of the heat that is trapped
in our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is taken and
stored up to 1,500m below the surface of the ocean. When it slows
down, less heat is sequestered in the seas and so our land surface
temperatures increase....<br>
- - - - -<br>
<b>Will the slowdown in the Atlantic current continue?</b><br>
That's unlikely according to this study.<br>
"We think that the decline of Amoc is reaching the minimum and if
history repeats, we will think this one will last about two
decades."<br>
"Where we have direct measurements, such as off the coast of
Florida, the measurements there have flattened since 2011. In the
northern Atlantic it is still declining."<br>
<b>So what will this mean for the UK?</b><br>
While the waters of the North Atlantic will definitely cool as a
result of changes in the flow, the experts says it's likely that the
UK will see continued impacts of climate change over the next 20
years according to this study.<br>
"The air temperatures globally will be warming and there's no
barrier for that so there won't be much cooling in the UK, you will
probably still see the normal global warming," said Prof Tung.<br>
The study has been published in the journal Nature.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44875508">https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44875508</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Our flat legal system fails in this 3D global world]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/07/19/new-york-city-climate-suit-john-keenan/">New
York City Climate Suit Dismissed by Federal Judge</a></b><br>
By Dana Drugmand<br>
A federal judge ruled in favor of five major oil companies on
Thursday, dismissing New York City's climate liability lawsuit
against them.<br>
U.S. District Judge John Keenan's ruling marks the second major
victory for the fossil fuel companies fighting these climate suits
in federal court. Late last month, Judge William Alsup dismissed the
lawsuit brought by Oakland and San Francisco against the same five
defendants in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.<br>
New York City's complaint, filed in January, included claims of
public nuisance, private nuisance and trespass and sought monetary
damages from BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch
Shell to help pay for the costs of protecting the city from climate
impacts.<br>
New York officials said they would appeal the ruling.<br>
Like Alsup, Keenan found that the courts are not the proper forum to
address harms resulting from climate change and greenhouse gas
pollution, saying it's an issue for the executive and legislative
branches to tackle.<br>
<br>
"There is a grave irony here. The fossil fuel company defendants
claimed in court-and the judge apparently agreed-that it is entirely
up to Congress and the President to address climate change. But
these same defendants and their trade groups have fought
successfully against even modest laws and regulations to cut the
carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels that causes global
warming," Ken Kimmel, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists
said in a statement. "My grandmother would have called this
'chutzpah' and lawyers call it 'unclean hands,' but no matter what
you call it, the court should not have let these companies off the
hook with this defense."<br>
<br>
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) welcomed the
outcome. "From the moment this baseless lawsuit was filed,
manufacturers have argued that the courtroom was not the proper
venue to address this global challenge," NAM president Jay Timmons
said in a statement. "Judge Keenan made that clear in his decision
today. Now that San Francisco, Oakland and New York City have had
their cases dismissed, the other municipalities should withdraw
their complaints to save taxpayer resources and focus on meaningful
solutions."<br>
<br>
The other cases around the country, however, including one that will
be announced on Friday by the city of Baltimore, are being filed in
state court, so the reasoning of Alsup and Keenan will not
necessarily apply.<br>
Keenan said that federal common law governs the city's claims, and
therefore, the Clean Air Act displaces those claims. The Clean Air
Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions, which is the reasoning behind the failure
of previous federal cases, including AEP v. Connecticut (2011) and
Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil (2012).<br>
<br>
Keenan also said that because the city has benefitted from fossil
fuels, a point emphasized by the oil companies in their hearing in
front of Keenan, the city is culpable for climate change as well.
"As an initial matter, it is not clear that Defendants' fossil fuel
production and the emissions created therefrom have been an
'unlawful invasion' in New York City, as the City benefits from and
participates in the use of fossil fuels as a source of power, and
has done so for many decades," Keenan wrote.<br>
Also like Alsup, Keenan avoided the issue of climate damages, which
was the basis for New York's complaint.<br>
<br>
"It is also important to note that this suit was not focused on
'solving' global warming," Kimmel said. "The suit sought to
compensate New York City for the damages it has already suffered and
will incur down the road. The climate threats facing New York City
are overwhelming, and taxpayers are already paying to protect the
city from future Sandy-scale damages.<br>
Keenan dismissed the suit in its entirety with prejudice, meaning
the city may not bring the same claim again.<br>
New York officials, however, say they stand by the conviction that
fossil fuel companies are liable for the harms their product has
created.<br>
"The Mayor believes big polluters must be held accountable for their
contributions to climate change and the damage it will cause New
York City. We intend to appeal this decision and to keep fighting
for New Yorkers who will bear the brunt of climate change," said
Seth Stein, spokesman for the NYC Mayor's Office.<br>
San Francisco and Oakland have yet to announce if they will appeal
Alsup's decision.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, other climate liability lawsuits are pending in courts in
California, King County, Wash., Colorado, and Rhode Island.<br>
<br>
According to Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center
for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, the New York City
decision does not determine the outcome of the other cases.<br>
"It does show that Judge Alsup's decision has resonated with at
least one other judge, and I wouldn't be surprised if other judges
also find the reasoning persuasive," he said. "But there is at least
one other court that found the exact opposite, namely that state
public nuisance claims are available."<br>
That would be Judge Vince Chhabria, who decided that state law
should govern the claims brought by Marin and San Mateo counties and
the city of Imperial Beach. The fossil fuel companies are appealing
that decision.<br>
The jurisdiction issue may be the key factor in determining the
success of these suits.<br>
<br>
"The cases that are either filed in federal court or-as with the San
Francisco and Oakland cases-removed to federal court are decided
under federal law," said Ann Carlson, professor of environmental law
and co-director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the
Environment at UCLA School of Law. "Federal nuisance law is much
less favorable for the cities and counties than state law is. The
state courts are where we are likely to see interesting and perhaps
surprising rulings."<br>
Keenan, however, rejected the possibility that the city could bring
its claims under state common law. "Given the interstate nature of
these claims, it would thus be illogical to allow the City to bring
state law claims when courts have found that these matters are areas
of federal concern that have been delegated to the Executive Branch
as they require a uniform, national solution," he said in the
ruling.<br>
<br>
Keenan also followed Alsup's lead in determining that holding
foreign companies liable (as Shell and BP are headquartered outside
the U.S.) and weighing liability for worldwide emissions would raise
foreign policy implications. "To litigate such an action for
injuries from foreign greenhouse gas emissions in federal court
would severely infringe upon the foreign-policy decisions that are
squarely within the purview of the political branches of the U.S.
Government," Keenan wrote. "Accordingly, the Court will exercise
appropriate caution and decline to recognize such a cause of
action."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/07/19/new-york-city-climate-suit-john-keenan/">https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/07/19/new-york-city-climate-suit-john-keenan/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Psys Org]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://phys.org/news/2018-07-money-climate-legislation.html">Money
talks when trying to influence climate change legislation</a></b><br>
Climate lobbying is big business. A new analysis shows that between
2000 and 2016, lobbyists spent more than two billion dollars on
influencing relevant legislation in the US Congress. Unsurprisingly,
sectors that could be negatively affected by bills limiting carbon
emissions, such as the electrical utilities sector, fossil fuel
companies and transportation corporations had the deepest pockets.
Their lobbying efforts dwarfed those of environmental organizations,
the renewable energy industry and volunteer groups. These results
are published in Springer's journal Climatic Change in a study led
by Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University in the US.<br>
Brulle analyzed data from mandatory lobbying reports made available
on the website Open Secrets. In his study, he calculated that the
two billion dollars spent between 2000 and 2016 on climate-related
issues actually only amounted to 3.9 per cent of the 53,5 billion
dollars spent over the same period on lobbying on other issues in
the US.<br>
The study also showed that the amount spent on climate change
lobbying varied depending on the timing of proposed legislation and
congressional hearings. Only about 50 million dollars (about 2 per
cent of total lobbying) was spent between 2000 and 2006. But
expenditure increased significantly in the following years, peaking
in 2009 at 362 million dollars-9 per cent of the total spent on
lobbying for that year. Following a slight decrease in 2010, climate
petitioning efforts dropped dramatically to around 3 per cent of
overall lobbying efforts after 2011.<br>
The sector that spent the most on climate change lobbying was the
electrical utilities sector, at 554 million dollars (26,4 per cent
of all climate change lobbying expenditure) over the 16-year period
studied. The fossil fuel sector spent 370 million dollars and the
transportation sector spent 252 million dollars during this time. In
contrast, the efforts of environmental organizations and the
renewable energy sector each only constituted about 3 per cent of
climate lobbying expenditures. This was significantly overshadowed
by the spending of the sectors engaged in the supply and use of
fossil fuels by a ratio of 10:1.<br>
"The vast majority of climate lobbying expenditure came from sectors
that would be highly impacted by climate legislation," Brulle
explains. "The spending of environmental groups and the renewable
energy sector was eclipsed by the spending of the electrical
utilities, fossil fuel, and transportation sectors."<br>
Brulle says that this has important implications for the fate,
outcome and nature of future climate legislation, which is largely
determined by intra-sector and inter-industry competition. He says
that the activities of environmental organizations and non-profit
organizations often constitute one-time, short-term mobilization
efforts. This is a shortcoming, given the vast expenditures and
continuous presence of professional lobbyists.<br>
<br>
"Lobbying is conducted away from the public eye. There is no open
debate or refutation of viewpoints offered by professional lobbyists
meeting in private with government officials," explains Brulle.
"Control over the nature and flow of information to government
decision-makers can be significantly altered by the lobbying process
and creates a situation of systematically distorted communication.
This process may limit the communication of accurate scientific
information in the decision-making process."<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://phys.org/news/2018-07-money-climate-legislation.html">https://phys.org/news/2018-07-money-climate-legislation.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[for future archeologists]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180716141627.htm">Buried
Internet infrastructure at risk as sea levels rise</a></b><br>
Date: July 16, 2018<br>
Source: University of Wisconsin-Madison<br>
Summary: Thousands of miles of buried fiber optic cable in densely
populated coastal regions of the United States may soon be inundated
by rising seas, according to a new study.<br>
"Most of the damage that's going to be done in the next 100 years
will be done sooner than later," says Barford, an authority on the
"physical internet" - the buried fiber optic cables, data centers,
traffic exchanges and termination points that are the nerve centers,
arteries and hubs of the vast global information network. "That
surprised us. The expectation was that we'd have 50 years to plan
for it. We don't have 50 years."<br>
<br>
The study, conducted with Barford's former student Ramakrishnan
Durairajan, now of the University of Oregon, and Carol Barford, who
directs UW-Madison's Center for Sustainability and the Global
Environment, is the first assessment of risk of climate change to
the internet. It suggests that by the year 2033 more than 4,000
miles of buried fiber optic conduit will be underwater and more than
1,100 traffic hubs will be surrounded by water. The most susceptible
U.S. cities, according to the report, are New York, Miami and
Seattle, but the effects would not be confined to those areas and
would ripple across the internet, says Barford, potentially
disrupting global communications.<br>
<br>
The peer-reviewed study combined data from the Internet Atlas, a
comprehensive global map of the internet's physical structure, and
projections of sea level incursion from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The study, which only evaluated
risk to infrastructure in the United States, was shared today with
academic and industry researchers at the Applied Networking Research
Workshop, a meeting of the Association for Computing Machinery, the
Internet Society and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers.<br>
<br>
Much of this infrastructure is buried and follows long-established
rights of way, typically paralleling highways and coastlines, says
Barford. "When it was built 20-25 years ago, no thought was given to
climate change."<br>
<br>
Many of the conduits at risk are already close to sea level and only
a slight rise in ocean levels due to melting polar ice and thermal
expansion as climate warms will be needed to expose buried fiber
optic cables to sea water. Hints of the problems to come, says
Barford, can be seen in the catastrophic storm surges and flooding
that accompanied hurricanes Sandy and Katrina.<br>
<br>
Buried fiber optic cables are designed to be water-resistant, but
unlike the marine cables that ferry data from continent to continent
under the ocean, they are not waterproof.<br>
<br>
Risk to the physical internet, says Barford, is coupled to the large
population centers that exist on the coasts, which also tend to be
the same places where the transoceanic marine cables that underpin
global communication networks come ashore. "The landing points are
all going to be underwater in a short period of time," he notes...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180716141627.htm">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180716141627.htm</a></font><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5569901"><br>
</a><font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5569901">This
Day in Climate History - July 20, 2006 </a>- from D.R. Tucker</b></font><br>
July 20, 2006: NPR reports on the GOP's show trials, er, hearings
regarding climate research in the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5569901">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5569901</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><i>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<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>
</i></font><font size="+1"><i><font size="+1"><i>To receive daily
mailings - <a
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request">click
to Subscribe</a> </i></font>to news digest. </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>