<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1"><i>October 14, 2018</i></font><br>
<br>
[compelling video]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://climatecrocks.com/2018/10/13/sea-level-how-effed-are-we/">Sea
Level: How Effed are We?</a></b><br>
Jeff Goodell in Rolling Stone:<br>
watch this short video <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://vimeo.com/292991175">https://vimeo.com/292991175</a><br>
In it, you'll see a scientist named Richard Alley in a Skype
discussion with students at Bard College, as well as with Eban
Goodstein, director of the Graduate Programs in Sustainability at
Bard. It would be just another nerdy Skype chat except Alley is
talking frankly about something that few scientists have the courage
to say in public: As bad as you think climate change might be in the
coming decades, reality could be far worse. Within the lifetime of
the students he's talking with, Alley says, there's some risk --
small but not as small as you might hope -- that the seas could rise
as much as 15-to-20 feet.<br>
<br>
Let's pause to think about what 15-to-20 feet of sea-level rise in
the next 70 or so years looks like. I'll put it bluntly: It means
not just higher storm surges from hurricanes, but the permanent
drowning of virtually every major coastal city in the world. Miami,
New Orleans, large parts of Boston and New York City and Silicon
Valley, not to mention Shanghai, Jakarta, Ho Chi Min City, Lagos,
Mumbai -- all gone. And I don't mean "sunny day flooding," where you
get your feet wet on the way to the mall. I mean these cities, and
many more, become scuba diving sites.<br>
There are not enough economists in the world to calculate the
trillions of dollars worth of real estate that would be lost in a
scenario like this. Nor are there enough social scientists to count
the hundreds of millions of people who would be displaced. You think
the world is a chaotic place now? Just wait.<br>
<br>
Richard Alley is not a fringe character in the world of climate
change. In fact, he is widely viewed as one of the greatest climate
scientists of our time. If there is anyone who understands the full
complexity of the risks we face from climate change, it's Alley. And
far from being alarmist, Alley is known for his careful, rigorous
science. He has spent most of his adult life deconstructing past
Earth climates from the information in ice cores and rocks and ocean
sediments. And what he has learned about the past, he has used to
better understand the future.<br>
<br>
For a scientist of Alley's stature to say that he can't rule out 15
or 20 feet of sea-level rise in the coming decades is mind-blowing.
And it is one of the clearest statements I've ever heard of just how
much trouble we are in on our rapidly warming planet.<br>
See the hour long lecture <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://vimeo.com/291976360">https://vimeo.com/291976360</a>
<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatecrocks.com/2018/10/13/sea-level-how-effed-are-we/">https://climatecrocks.com/2018/10/13/sea-level-how-effed-are-we/</a></font><br>
<br>
[Rolling Stone article]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-sea-level-rise-737012/">What's
Another Way to Say 'We're F-cked'?</a></b><br>
One of the leading climate scientists of our time is warning of the
horrifying possibility of 15-to-20 feet of sea-level rise<br>
By JEFF GOODELL <br>
- - - -<br>
So why is Alley arguing that the risk of catastrophic sea-level rise
is so much higher than the report that is often cited as "the gold
standard" of climate science?<br>
<br>
For one thing, IPCC reports are notoriously conservative. They are
written in collaboration with a large group of scientists and are
often watered down by endless debate and consensus-building. (There
are 18 lead authors and 69 contributing authors on the chapter that
considers sea-level rise.) For another, they rely on published
science that is often out of date -- or at least, far from the
cutting edge. The new IPCC report has already been criticized for
low-balling risks by climatologists like Penn State's Michael Mann,
who has pointed out that the report understates the amount of
warming we've already experienced as a result of burning fossil
fuels, which means that we are much closer to the 1.5 and 2 degrees
Celsius thresholds than the report implies...<br>
- - - -<br>
Alley understands the secrets of ice.<br>
For Alley, the engine of potential catastrophe is West Antarctica.
The details are complex, but here's a short version of what's
happening: warm water from the Southern Ocean is melting the
underside of big glaciers like Thwaites and Pine Island, which, due
to the unusual terrain there, have the potential to collapse
quickly. (I wrote a much longer, more detailed account of the
mechanics of ice sheet collapse here). If West Antarctica goes,
that's 10 feet of sea-level rise right there. Then if you add in ice
loss from Greenland, a little from East Antarctica and other
sources, you quickly get to 15 to 20 feet.<br>
The big question is, how soon could it happen?<br>
"We don't really know," Alley tells Rolling Stone via email. He
points to the lack of constraints in physical data and models that
would put a speed limit on the collapse. "The most-likely future as
projected by the IPCC is well on the small-change/small-damage
'good' end of the possible futures, with potential for slightly
better, slightly worse, and much worse, but without a balancing
'much better,'" Alley writes.<br>
In other words, when it comes to ice-sheet collapse, uncertainty is
not our friend. The collapse might not happen fast. Then again, he
can't rule out the possibility that it will happen fast, very
fast...<br>
- - - -<br>
Alley points out that the best way to avoid this uncertainty is to
keep climate warming below 1.5 Celsius or less. In existing climate
models, West Antarctica remains fairly stable below that threshold.
But given the world's current burn rate of fossil fuels, and the
massive industrial and political transformation required to keep
temperatures below that threshold, Alley knows that's unlikely.<br>
<br>
"I personally am not planning to tell people that I know what
[amount of warming determines if] ice shelves will or won't break
off, leaving cliffs that will or won't crumble rapidly," Alley
writes to me. "So, for now, I have to leave large, rapid changes
within my error bars, and I believe I have a duty to tell people
this."<br>
And that's one of the things that makes Alley such a great
scientist. He not only understands the world-changing risks we face
better than almost anyone. He also understands that it's his job to
warn us about them.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-sea-level-rise-737012/">https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-sea-level-rise-737012/</a></font><br>
- - - -<br>
[see the Bard College full video 1 hour seminar ]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://vimeo.com/291976360">National
Climate Seminar: Sea Level Rise with Richard Alley, 9/19/18,
Bard Center for Environmental Policy</a></b><br>
Dr. Alley is the Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences and an Associate
of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Penn State. His
current research interests include glaciology; ice sheet stability;
paleoclimates from ice cores; physical properties of ice cores; and
erosion and sedimentation by ice sheets. Along with his many
teaching accomplishments, Alley has authored numerous publications,
chaired the National Research Council's panel on abrupt climate
change, has been involved with advisory groups to improve national
and international research, and has been active with media outreach
to translate research findings to a broad audience with appearances
on television and radio and in print outlets. He is a member of the
National Academy of Sciences (news.psu.edu/expert/richard-alley).<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://vimeo.com/291976360">https://vimeo.com/291976360</a><br>
<br>
<br>
[vote+plus]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/12/midterms-climate-change-activists-voter-turnout-environment">'We
need some fire': climate change activists issue call to arms for
voters</a></b><br>
Campaigners say more than 15m people who care about the environment
did not vote in the 2014 midterms - can they create a 'green wave'
this November?<br>
Among the motivating issues for voters in US elections, the
environment is typically eclipsed by topics such as healthcare, the
economy and guns. But the upcoming midterms could, belatedly, see a
stirring of a slumbering green giant.<br>
"The environmental movement doesn't have a persuasion problem, it
has a turnout problem," said Nathaniel Stinnett, the founder of the
Environmental Voter Project, which is aiming to spur people who care
about the natural world and climate change to the ballot box. "This
group has more power than it realizes. In the midterms we want to
flood the zone with environmentalists."<br>
Any such voting surge would go some way to heeding the increasingly
urgent warnings from scientists about climate change. A major UN
climate report released this week said the world risks worsening
floods, droughts, species loss and poverty without "rapid and
far-reaching transitions" to energy, transport and land use.<br>
"We show it can be done within laws of physics and chemistry," said
Jim Skea, a coauthor of the exhaustive report. "The final tick box
is political will. We cannot answer that."...<br>
- - - - -<br>
Beyond disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires, most politicians
and the media, particularly broadcast news, rarely dwell for long on
environmental matters. In 2017, the costliest year on record for
climate-related disasters, a total of just 260 minutes coverage of
climate change was broadcast across the six major TV networks,
according to one analysis.<br>
A year prior, no questions on climate change were put to Donald
Trump or Hillary Clinton during three presidential debates. Trump
has subsequently ignored the issue in office, save the odd
disparaging tweet, while overseeing an administration that has
systematically dismantled climate, air and water pollution
regulations.<br>
At first glance, the evidence suggests there will be only a mild
voter backlash to this agenda. Voters asked recently by Yale to rank
28 issues placed global warming 15th, behind areas like tax reform,
immigration, terrorism, healthcare and the economy.<br>
The partisan split is stark, however - while liberal Democrats place
global warming fourth out of 28, conservative Republicans rank it
dead last. "The issue has become more polarized than abortion in
terms of voting priorities," said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director
of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. "The most
important factor in belief in climate science is political
ideology...<br>
- - - - -<br>
Taken in aggregate, Americans' belief that climate change is
occurring is gradually strengthening, now standing at around seven
in 10 voters. Policies to address climate change enjoy surprisingly
hefty support - Yale found 85% of Americans support more funding for
renewable energy research, 77% want carbon dioxide regulated as a
pollutant and nearly seven in 10 want fossil fuel companies to pay a
carbon tax.<br>
A further 70% of those polled believe environmental protection is
more important than economic growth - evidence, perhaps, that the
huge swaths of political rhetoric about taxes and jobs is severely
out of kilter with the public.<br>
"The link between events like hurricanes and climate change is
emerging as an idea in Americans' minds, even as they are swamped by
partisanship," said Leiserowitz.<br>
"It's conceivable climate change will swing future elections but
it's also conceivable we will continue to ignore the issue. After
all, it gets almost no ink in the media, so how can we expect people
to think it's important?"<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/12/midterms-climate-change-activists-voter-turnout-environment">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/12/midterms-climate-change-activists-voter-turnout-environment</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[strong language]<br>
<b><a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/13/top-climate-scientist-james-hansen-attacks-uk-fracking-plans">Top
climate scientist blasts UK's fracking plans as 'aping Trump'</a></b><br>
James Hansen, 'father of climate science', accuses Britain of
ignoring science<br>
One of the world's leading climate scientists has launched a
scathing attack on the government's fracking programme, accusing
ministers of aping Donald Trump and ignoring scientific evidence.<br>
James Hansen, who is known as the father of climate science, warned
that future generations would judge the decision to back a UK
fracking industry harshly.<br>
"So the UK joins Trump, ignores science… full throttle ahead with
the worst fossil fuels," Hansen told the Observer. "The science is
crystal clear, we need to phase out fossil fuels starting with the
most damaging, the 'unconventional' fossil fuels such as tar sands
and 'fracking'."<br>
Hansen has also written to the UK energy minister, Claire Perry, to
underline his objections, warning that the decision was a serious
policy error that would contribute to "climate breakdown"...<br>
-- - - <br>
But in his letter Hansen warned that young people could inherit an
environment "out of their control" if fracking was pursued. "If the
UK were to join the US by developing gas fields at this point in
time it will lock in the methane problem for decades," he wrote,
adding that fracking would fatally undermine the UK's attempt to
fulfil its climate obligations.<br>
"The fossil fuel companies are well aware methane is a potent
greenhouse gas, and yet they seem willing to continue on a path
which can have disastrous consequences for our grandchildren,"
Hansen said.<br>
The Conservative party's fracking programme - which aims to release
fossil fuel gas from wells at sites across England - has been dogged
by criticism from environmentalists as well as fierce local
opposition. There is a moratorium on the practice in Scotland and
Wales...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/13/top-climate-scientist-james-hansen-attacks-uk-fracking-plans">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/13/top-climate-scientist-james-hansen-attacks-uk-fracking-plans</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[forceful speech 8 min video]<br>
<b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99AwWQ-M2_M">Harrison
Ford - 2018 Global Climate Action Summit</a></b><br>
Conservation International<br>
Published on Sep 25, 2018<br>
"We know that we only have the possibility of avoiding a looming
climate catastrophe if people like us refuse to give up." - Harrison
Ford, Conservation International Vice Chair at the 2018 Global
Climate Action Summit<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99AwWQ-M2_M">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99AwWQ-M2_M</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Tune in next year]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-one-show-first-primetime-film-climate-change-since-2007">Exclusive:
BBC One to show first primetime film on climate change since
2007</a></b><br>
12 October 2018<br>
The BBC has commissioned a major new documentary film on climate
change.<br>
Charlotte Moore, the BBC's director of content, said in a speech
last night that the new film will be called "Two Degrees". She
added:<br>
"We want it to be the definitive film on climate change. To cut
through the confusion, tell audiences the facts without any other
agenda, explore what a dangerous level of climate change could
really mean. It will be unflinching about the potential catastrophe
that's unfolding. And offer the facts about what can still be done."<br>
"Because, for all the uncomfortable truth, the message…is,
ultimately, a positive one: we have the power to do something. We
hold the future in our hands."<br>
No further details about the film have yet been provided by the BBC.
However, Carbon Brief has exclusively obtained more information.<br>
The 90-minute film is scheduled to air in a primetime slot on BBC
One at the end of March next year. It will be part of a week-long
series of environmentally themed programmes called "Blue Planet
Live".<br>
"Two Degrees" is currently the working title of the film. It will be
the first time BBC One has aired a primetime documentary dedicated
to the topic of climate change since 2007. On 21 January of that
year, a documentary presented by Sir David Attenborough called
"Climate Change: Britain Under Threat", was broadcast at 8pm on BBC
One...<br>
- - - -<br>
<b>Three parts</b><br>
The film will likely be structured around three distinct parts
across its 90 minutes.<br>
The current plan is to focus part one on the fact that the world has
just experienced a year of extremes weather events, such as the
"Beast of East" cold spell, wildfires and record-breaking summer
heatwaves. This has triggered public discussion about the
contribution played by human-caused climate change.<br>
<br>
This first section will also include a "Where are we now?" and short
history of climate science. There will be testimonies from those
affected by the extremes, as well as interviews with scientists in
the field.<br>
<br>
Part two will be themed, "Where are we going?". There will be a
focus on "tipping points" and why 2C of global warming matters as a
threshold. It will not just concentrate on the science, but also pan
out to cover the economics and politics.<br>
<br>
The concluding part will focus on, "How do we save ourselves?". But
Carbon Brief understands from a source involved in the planning that
this section will "avoid cliched case studies of renewables, etc,
and focus instead on surprising advances and innovations which
showcase human ingenuity". It will avoid the narrative of
"sacrifice". It will allow the interviewees to explain the politics
and how the "incumbency is resisting change"...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-one-show-first-primetime-film-climate-change-since-2007">https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-one-show-first-primetime-film-climate-change-since-2007</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
LIFE AFTER WARMING OCT. 10, 2018<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html">UN
Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It's Actually Worse Than That.</a></b><br>
By David Wallace-Wells<br>
- - - -(clip) <br>
Barring the arrival of dramatic new carbon-sucking technologies,
which are so far from scalability at present that they are best
described as fantasies of industrial absolution, it will not be
possible to keep warming below two degrees Celsius -- the level the
new report describes as a climate catastrophe. As a planet, we are
coursing along a trajectory that brings us north of four degrees by
the end of the century. The IPCC is right that two degrees marks a
world of climate catastrophe. Four degrees is twice as bad as that.
And that is where we are headed, at present -- a climate hell twice
as hellish as the one the IPCC says, rightly, we must avoid at all
costs. But the real meaning of the report is not "climate change is
much worse than you think," because anyone who knows the state of
the research will find nothing surprising in it. The real meaning
is, "you now have permission to freak out."<br>
<br>
As recently as a year ago, when I published a magazine cover story
exploring worst-case scenarios for climate change, alarmism of this
kind was considered anathema to many scientists, who believed that
storytelling that focused on the scary possibilities was just as
damaging to public engagement as denial. There have been a few scary
developments in climate research over the past year -- more methane
from Arctic lakes and permafrost than expected, which could
accelerate warming; an unprecedented heat wave, arctic wildfires,
and hurricanes rolling through both of the world's major oceans this
past summer. But by and large the consensus is the same: We are on
track for four degrees of warming, more than twice as much as most
scientists believe is possible to endure without inflicting climate
suffering on hundreds of millions or threatening at least parts of
the social and political infrastructure we call, grandly,
"civilization." The only thing that changed, this week, is that the
scientists, finally, have hit the panic button.<br>
- - - -<br>
That is not to say it's over or we're doomed. Stalling warming below
four degrees is better than surpassing it, keeping temperatures
below three is better still, and the closer we get to two degrees
the more miraculous. That is because climate change isn't binary,
and doesn't just kick in, full force, at any particular temperature
level; it's a function that gets worse over time as long as we
produce greenhouse gases. How long we continue to is, really, up to
us, which is to say it will be determined in the province of
politics, which is to say public panic like that produced by the
IPCC report can be a very productive form of policy pressure.<br>
<br>
There are also those far-fetched alternatives I mentioned -- carbon
capture and solar geoengineering -- but each is far from workable at
the moment and, even in theory, come with really scary drawbacks.
But even if the technology becomes dramatically cheaper and more
efficient over the next few years, you would need to build them out
across the globe, as well -- whole plantations sucking carbon almost
everywhere on the planet. It will take quite a long time to build
those, in other words, even if they worked, and we simply don't have
that many years left to act...<br>
- - - -<br>
This is just the threat from sea level, and just one (very rich)
metropolitan area. The world is much bigger than that, but so is
climate change. It is also very fast, with more than half the carbon
humanity has ever emitted into the atmosphere having come in just
the last 25 years, since Al Gore published his first book on climate
change. Monday's IPCC may seem like a dramatic departure, and it is.
But there is going to be much more like it coming. So long as we
continue to squander what little time we have, the news will only
get worse from here.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html">http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Food Stress article from VOA]<br>
WFP: Climate Change to Accelerate World Hunger<br>
GENEVA -- The World Food Program warns climate change will have a
devastating impact on agriculture and the ability of people to feed
themselves. The WFP forecasts a huge increase in worldwide hunger
unless action is taken to slow global warming.<br>
<br>
The WFP warns progress in reducing global hunger is under threat by
conflict and the increase in climate disasters. For the first time
in several decades, the WFP reports the number of people suffering
from chronic food shortages has risen.<br>
<b>This year, it says, 821 million people went to bed hungry, 11
million more than the previous year.</b><br>
Gernot Laganda, WFP's chief of Climate and Disaster Risk Reduction,
notes the number of climate disasters has more than doubled since
the early 1990s. He says extreme weather events are driving more
people to flee their homes, leading to more hunger.<br>
<b>He told VOA the situation will get much worse as global
temperatures rise.</b><br>
"We are projecting that with a two-degree warmer world, we will have
around 189 million people in a status of food insecurity more than
today. And, if it is a four-degrees warmer world, which is possible
if no action is taken, we are looking beyond one billion more. So,
there is a very, very strong argument for early and decisive climate
action," said Laganda.<br>
<br>
Data from this year's State of Food Security and Nutrition in the
World report by six leading U.N. agencies show the bulk of losses
and damages in food systems are due to drought and most of these
disastrous events occur in Africa.<br>
<br>
Laganda says the number of people suffering from hunger because of
climate change-induced drought is rising particularly in Africa and
Latin America. He notes that until recently progress in Asia had led
to a reduction in world hunger, but that trend has slowed markedly.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.voanews.com/a/wfp-climate-change-to-accelerate-world-hunger/4612092.html">https://www.voanews.com/a/wfp-climate-change-to-accelerate-world-hunger/4612092.html</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Litigation]<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/10/12/trump-administration-writ-mandamus-youth-climate-case/">Trump
Administration Launches Third Legal 'Hail Mary' to Halt Youth
Climate Case</a></b><br>
By Karen Savage<br>
The Trump administration has filed another extraordinary appeal in
its attempt to avoid a trial in the landmark youth-led climate
lawsuit, Juliana v. United States.<br>
The government filed its third writ of mandamus petition to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay district court proceedings
pending the resolution of a separate petition it plans to file with
the Supreme Court next week. The Ninth Circuit denied the first two
requests for a writ of mandamus--a rarely used and even more rarely
approved judicial appeal that asks a higher court to overrule a
lower one before the conclusion of a case--and the Supreme Court has
already once denied a request by the federal government to halt
discovery.<br>
A writ of mandamus is usually granted only under extraordinary
circumstances and is considered a legal last resort. The Ninth
Circuit said after the first two requests that the government has
not shown it would be meaningfully burdened by discovery or a trial.<br>
The trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 29 at U.S. District Court in
Eugene, Ore.<br>
Julia Olson, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said there is nothing
new in the government's latest petition.<br>
"To suggest that our government suffers harm greater than its
citizens by having to participate in a trial when its youngest
citizens bring legitimate claims of constitutional harm before our
Article III courts flies in the face of democratic principles," said
Olson.<br>
The government filed a separate motion in the U.S. District Court
last week asking for a stay until Judge Ann Aiken rules on two
motions to dismiss the suit that were heard in July.<br>
Jacob Lebel, a 21-year-old plaintiff in the case, said the Trump
administration doesn't want to face the climate science that will be
presented during the trial. He referred to a government report
issued in August that predicts even more drastic global warming than
previous reports assumed.<br>
"The Trump administration's own recent report indicates that we can
expect 7 degrees F of warming before the end of this century," Lebel
said. "It is truly frightening that their priority in the face of
this is to waste our time and the public's resources by desperately
trying to avoid trial."<br>
Vic Barrett, a 19-year-old plaintiff from White Plains, NY, said
repeated attempts by the Trump administration to wrangle free of the
case are telling.<br>
"The most powerful government in the world sure is scared of a group
of young people armed with the truth," said Barrett.<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/10/12/trump-administration-writ-mandamus-youth-climate-case/">https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/10/12/trump-administration-writ-mandamus-youth-climate-case/</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
[Mapping, displaying data]<br>
INFOGRAPHICS | September 26. 2018. 15:10<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-every-part-of-the-world-has-warmed-and-could-continue-to-warm">Mapped:
How every part of the world has warmed - and could continue to
warm</a></b><br>
Climate change is often communicated by looking at the global
average temperature. But a global average might not mean much to the
average person. How the climate is likely to change specifically
where people live is, in most cases, a much more important
consideration.<br>
<br>
To do this, the world has been broken up into "grid cells"
representing every degree latitude and every degree longitude. This
results in 64,800 grid cells, which are typically about 100
kilometers wide. (In reality, they are a bit larger at the equator
and smaller close to the poles.)<br>
<br>
The map overlay on the interactive above shows the amount of warming
to expect in each grid cell based on future Representative
Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios developed by climate
scientists. These four scenarios represent different possible future
emission trajectories. They range from the low-warming RCP2.6
scenario, which keeps global warming from the pre-industrial era to
below 2C, up to a high-warming RCP8.5 scenario that would likely see
global temperatures rise to above 4C...<br>
<font size="-1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-every-part-of-the-world-has-warmed-and-could-continue-to-warm">https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-every-part-of-the-world-has-warmed-and-could-continue-to-warm</a></font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1"><b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-10-14/news/bs-ed-climate-20131014_1_ipcc-report-climate-change-intergovernmental-panel">This
Day in Climate History - October 14, 2913</a> - from D.R.
Tucker</b></font><br>
October 14, 2013: In an editorial, the Baltimore Sun declares:<br>
<blockquote>"The latest analysis produced by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), compiled by hundreds of scientists
and dozens of authors from around the globe, shows that climate
change is real, it's largely caused by man, and it's the greatest
environmental threat we face.<br>
<br>
"That's not alarmism, it's reality. Of course, know-nothing
deniers will be as dismissive of the IPCC findings as they've been
of similar reports in the past. That the IPCC is under the
auspices of the United Nations will be used to stir up
nationalistic suspicions. That climate change policy is highly
inconvenient for the fossil fuel industries will cause the big
coal and oil companies to continue their disinformation campaigns.<br>
<br>
"None of which changes the reality that climate change poses a
serious threat, and as the evidence mounts, it's actually become
easier to distinguish these basic changes in the ecosystem from
the normal ups and downs of weather. No one super storm or drought
or tornado is traceable to global warming, of course, but the data
are simply too overwhelming to ignore. Each of the last three
decades has proven successively warmer than the previous. Any
recent slowing of that trend or plateau, as the report notes, has
more to do with variables such as volcanic activity and the solar
cycle over the last five years than it does the build-up of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-10-14/news/bs-ed-climate-20131014_1_ipcc-report-climate-change-intergovernmental-panel">http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-10-14/news/bs-ed-climate-20131014_1_ipcc-report-climate-change-intergovernmental-panel</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>