<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b>February</b></i></font><font
size="+2" face="Calibri"><i><b> 4, 2024</b></i></font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font><br>
<i>[ California deluge this Sunday ]</i><br>
Damaging Winds Likely<br>
<b>This BIG Storm Will Cuase Serious Problems...</b><br>
David Schlotthauer <br>
Feb 3, 2024<br>
A powerful storm will slam into California tonight, lasting through
Tuesday. This storm is very likely to bring very heavy rain that
will lead to significant flooding on creeks & rivers. The
deepening storm system will bring a period of dangerous winds of
35-50 mph with gusts over 60-80 mph, wind gusts of 75-90 mph are
likely along the Big Sur coast. Should a sting jet develop on the
southeastern quadrant of the low-pressure center, then a 1 or 2-hour
period of extreme wind damage is a possibility, especially in the
higher elevations. Rain totals look very concerning but how
concerning? And how much snow could you see for the Sierra mountains
with this storm? Find out more in the video. <br>
<br>
Video Chapters:<br>
0:00 - Intro<br>
0:36 - Impressive Sattlite Images <br>
1:30 - Latest Weather Alerts<br>
3:07 - Storm Timing & Magnitude<br>
6:10 - High Risk For Flooding Issued<br>
8:36 - Rain & Snow Totals<br>
10:41 - Damaging Winds Likely<br>
13:08 - How Deep Will The Low Get?<br>
14:49 - A Look at NWS Offices <br>
18:07 - Outro/Promotion<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43gxlhtmhc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P43gxlhtmhc</a><i><br>
</i>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ Yes it is possible that you have noticed clouds are changing -
reading aloud one paper - but our atmosphere does hold more that
7% more moisture than at cooler times ]</i><br>
<b>Study on the Role and Distribution of Clouds in Climate Change
Models</b><br>
Paul Beckwith<br>
Feb 3, 2024<br>
Tim Garrett of “Earth as a heat engine” fame is a co-author in a new
study on clouds and climate, which I chat about in this video.<br>
“Climatologically invariant scale invariance seen in distributions
of cloud horizontal sizes”:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/109/2024/acp-24-109-2024.pdf">https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/109/2024/acp-24-109-2024.pdf</a><br>
"Abstract. <br>
Cloud area distributions are a defining feature of Earth’s radiative
exchanged with outer space.<br>
<br>
Cloud perimeter distributions n(p) are also interesting because the
shared interface between clouds and clear sky determines exchanges
of buoyant energy and air. Here, we test using detailed model output
and a wide range of satellite datasets a first-principles prediction
that perimeter distributions follow a scale-invariant power law n(p)
∝ p−(1+β), where the exponent β = 1 is evaluated for perimeters
within moist isentropic atmospheric layers. <br>
<br>
In model analyses, the value of β is closely reproduced. In
satellite data, β is remarkably robust to latitude, season, and
land–ocean contrasts, which suggests that, at least statistically
speaking, cloud perimeter distributions are determined more by
atmospheric stability than Coriolis forces, surface temperature, or
contrasts in aerosol loading between continental and marine
environments. However, the satellite-measured value of β is found to
be 1.26 ± 0.06 rather than β = 1. The reason for the discrepancy is
unclear, but comparison with a model reproduction of the satellite
perspective suggests that it may owe to cloud overlap. Satellite
observations also show that scale invariance governs cloud areas for
a range at least as large as ∼ 3 to ∼ 3 × 105 km2, and notably with
a corresponding power law exponent close to unity. Many prior
studies observed a much smaller range for power law behavior, and we
argue this difference is due to inappropriate treatments of the
statistics of clouds that are truncated by the edge of the
measurement domain.”<br>
<br>
Basically, we need to know more about clouds to get better computer
simulations of the planet.<br>
<br>
“Since the first numerical global climate models (GCMs) were
developed in the 1960s, there have been exponential advances in
computational capabilities that have led to spectacular simulations
of cloud structures. The next generation of climate models is
expected to resolve individual clouds at kilometer scales. The
strategy behind this “bottom-up” approach to representing the role
of clouds in climate is that pursuing ever finer spatial resolution
and improved model physics will lead to more accurate predictions,
accepting the necessary evil of increased computational expense.
Yet, perhaps alarmingly, it has not been clear that this approach
has been successful in its goal given that the spread in GCM
predictions of the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases has, if
anything, only increased.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q72aL2jd-UA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q72aL2jd-UA</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ Clouds ]</i><br>
<b>Climatologically invariant scale invariance seen in distributions
of cloud horizontal sizes</b><br>
Thomas D. DeWitt, Timothy J. Garrett, Karlie N. Rees, Corey Bois,
Steven K. Krueger, and Nicolas Ferlay<br>
...Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, 135 S
1460 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA<br>
...LOA – Laboratoire d’Optique Atmosphérique, UMR 8518, CNRS,
University of Lille, 59000 Lille, France<br>
Correspondence: Timothy J. Garrett (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tim.garrett@utah.edu">tim.garrett@utah.edu</a>)<br>
Received: 9 May 2023 – Discussion started: 14 June 2023<br>
Published: 5 January 2024<br>
<blockquote><b>Abstract</b>. Cloud area distributions are a defining
feature of Earth’s radiative exchanges with outer space. Cloud
perimeter distributions n(p) are also interesting because the
shared interface between clouds and clear sky determines exchanges
of buoyant energy and air. Here, we test using detailed model
output and a wide range of satellite datasets a first-principles
prediction that perimeter distributions follow a scale-invariant
power law n(p) ∝ p−(1+β) , where the exponent β = 1 is evaluated
for perimeters within moist isentropic atmospheric layers. In
model analyses, the value of β is closely reproduced. In satellite
data, β is remarkably robust to latitude, season, and land–ocean
contrasts, which suggests that, at least statistically speaking,
cloud perimeter distributions are determined more by atmospheric
stability than Coriolis forces, surface temperature, or contrasts
in aerosol loading between continental and marine environments.
However, the satellite-measured value of β is found to be 1.26 ±
0.06 rather than β = 1. The reason for the discrepancy is unclear,
but comparison with a model reproduction of the satellite
perspective suggests that it may owe to cloud overlap. Satellite
observations also show that scale invariance governs cloud areas
for a range at least as large as ∼ 3 to ∼ 3 × 105 km2, and notably
with a corresponding power law exponent close to unity. Many prior
studies observed a much smaller range for power law behavior, and
we argue this difference is due to inappropriate treatments of the
statistics of clouds that are truncated by the edge of the
measurement domain.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/109/2024/acp-24-109-2024.pdf">https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/109/2024/acp-24-109-2024.pdf</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ older academic presentation, "Warm clouds persist longer than
cold clouds" , "least warming in summer - most warming in colder
times"]</i><br>
<b>How do clouds affect global warming?</b><br>
UT Physics Colloquium<br>
2021<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1VBCt8GLc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1VBCt8GLc</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i><br>
</i></p>
<i>[ a 60 Minutes segment - is clear speaking on our extinction
crisis ]</i><br>
<b>Mass Extinction; American Prairie; Gorongosa; Wild Horses | 60
Minutes Full Episodes</b><br>
60 Minutes<br>
Jan 27, 2024 Full Episodes | 60 Minutes<br>
From January of last year, Scott Pelley's report on the mass
extinction event scientists say Earth is currently experiencing.
From October 2022, Bill Whitaker's story on efforts to create the
largest nature reserve in the contiguous United States. From
December 2022, Pelley's dispatch from Mozambique's Gorongosa
National Park. And from November 2022, Sharyn Alfonsi's piece on the
Wyoming Honor Farm, where prisoners have the chance to care for wild
horses.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cfqQllZbr4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cfqQllZbr4</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Some real history - DeSmog reports on a 1963 meeting ]</i><br>
<b>1963 Conference Put Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change in the
Spotlight</b><br>
New documents show Big Oil funded the first known meeting on CO2 and
climate change, bringing risks of burning fossil fuels to national
attention.<br>
Rebecca John<br>
Jan 30, 2024<br>
At 9:30 am on March 12, 1963, in Room 1-B of Manhattan’s Rockefeller
Institute, six experts gathered to discuss the implications of a
newly identified atmospheric phenomenon: the rising level of carbon
dioxide (CO2) caused by the burning of fossil fuels. <br>
<br>
Hosted by the Conservation Foundation, a philanthropic organization,
this small but vitally important symposium would help to bring a
practically unknown area of scientific inquiry to national
awareness.<br>
<br>
“Man is altering the balance of a relatively stable system by his
pollution of the atmosphere with smoke, fumes and particles from . .
. fossil fuels” and by “the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide
an industrial society releases to the atmosphere” wrote the
foundation’s president, Samuel H. Ordway, Jr., in the foreword to
the group’s 1962 Annual Report. Concerned by potential climatic
consequences, the foundation had proposed a conference on the
“Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere” — an informal symposium
that would allow a selected panel of experts to clarify their
thinking and crystallize their ideas for “future scientific
research” on the topic.<br>
<br>
By sounding the alarm over CO2-induced climate change, and
attempting to propel the issue out of the lab and into the
limelight, this long-overlooked conference essentially inaugurated
what would become the global climate action movement. Almost a half
century before Al Gore’s seminal film and book, “An Inconvenient
Truth,” the conference organizers produced what appears to be the
first publication devoted entirely to the subject of CO2 and climate
change. They distributed 700 free copies of the document to raise
awareness of the issue and stimulate planning for the prevention of
future catastrophe. <br>
<br>
These never-before-seen documents recently discovered as part of
DeSmog and Climate Investigation Center’s ongoing exploration of
early public awareness of climate science, were found at the
University of Wyoming’s American Heritage Center; the Charles David
Keeling Papers at the University of California, San Diego; the U.S.
National Archives; and the LBJ Presidential Library. They reveal
that within a year of the conference the issue of CO2-caused climate
change would be brought to the attention of policy makers inside the
U.S. Government. <br>
<b><br>
Early Example of Corporate Greenwashing</b><br>
The location chosen for the conference was New York’s Rockefeller
Institute established in 1901 by John D. Rockefeller, the founder of
Standard Oil (now ExxonMobil). The Rockefeller Foundation, which
maintained a close association with the Rockefeller Institute, was a
prominent sponsor of the Conservation Foundation, as was the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, giving a combined total of $35,000 (worth
almost $350,000 today) to the conservation group in 1962, the year
in which the conference was organized. <br>
<br>
According to the Conservation Foundation’s “Summary of Receipts” for
that year, Laurance S. Rockefeller (the financier, philanthropist,
and conservationist who was a grandson of John D. Rockefeller) made
substantial donations. Three major oil companies also contributed
smaller amounts — $2,500 from Standard Oil of New Jersey
(ExxonMobil); $1,000 from Standard Oil of California (Chevron); and
$1,000 from the Richfield Oil Corporation (BP). <br>
A newly discovered internal document authored by Standard Oil of New
Jersey (ExxonMobil) in 1966 suggests that its donation was made for
PR purposes in an early example of corporate greenwashing. The
document, found in the ExxonMobil Historical Collection in Austin,
Texas, reveals that one of the company’s PR objectives “as approved
by the Board in 1962” was “to work for a climate of opinion at home
and abroad that will encourage fair opportunity for its operations.”
<br>
<b>Team CO2</b><br>
The Conservation Foundation invited a handful of experts, mostly
scientists interested in the Earth’s natural systems, to participate
in the conference. Like the foundation itself, some of these
scientists also had connections to the fossil fuel industry,
highlighting the close relationship between the industry and climate
science during this time. <br>
<br>
First on the list was Edward Deevey, a Yale ecologist and
paleontologist, who, funded by another Rockefeller Foundation grant,
had used carbon dating to develop a global climate history. <br>
<br>
Second was Erik Eriksson of the Swedish International Meteorological
Institute, whose 1958 paper, “Changes in the Carbon Dioxide Content
of the Atmosphere and Sea Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion,”
demonstrated how fossil fuels were contributing CO2 pollution to the
atmosphere. <br>
<br>
Next up was Charles D. Keeling a geochemist from the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, whose measurements of atmospheric CO2
from the Mauna Loa Observatory revealed steadily rising levels of
the gas that would come to be depicted in the iconic “Keeling
Curve.” According to newly discovered documents, Keeling’s earliest
CO2 research, measuring concentrations across the western United
States in the mid 1950s, was funded by the Southern California Air
Pollution Foundation. This foundation was formed to tackle the Los
Angeles “smog problem,” and was sponsored by automobile
manufacturers and oil producers. <br>
After Keeling came Gilbert N. Plass from the Ford Motor Company. A
former physics professor at Johns Hopkins University, Plass had
published articles on carbon dioxide and climate in scientific
journals, including American Scientist, Tellus, and the Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences. These articles contained evidence
that burning fossil fuels was responsible for a documented rise in
global temperatures over the 20th Century.<br>
<br>
Finally, Lionel Walford of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
Atlantic Marine Laboratory, an expert on the impact of human
activities on fish, joined the panel, along with William A. Garnett,
a pioneer in aerial photography who had documented the effects of
expanding human activities on the U.S. landscape.<br>
<br>
The evening before the symposium, a cocktail reception was held for
the participants at the apartment of Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Ordway,
Jr., in Manhattan, not far from the Rockefeller Institute. The next
morning, however, it was down to business with lunch provided and a
stenographer present to record the discussions “for subsequent
analysis.”<br>
<br>
<b>CO2 Will Have Serious Consequences</b><br>
The product of the symposium was a farsighted, slim publication,
“Implications of Rising Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere,”
which contained a fateful synthesis of the views expressed by the
conference’s participants.<br>
<br>
“It is known that the carbon dioxide situation, as it has been
observed within the last century, is one which might have
considerable biological, geographical and economic consequences
within the not too distant future,” the foreword stated. “What is
important is that with the rise of carbon dioxide, by way of exhaust
gases from engines and other sources, there is a rise in the
temperature of the atmosphere and oceans.”<br>
<br>
The authors hoped the publication would contribute to further
examination of “the carbon dioxide situation,” which was described
in the foreword as a subject of “considerable concern and
controversy.” <br>
<br>
Although the report acknowledged the uncertainties surrounding the
emerging science of carbon dioxide and climate change, it also noted
that these uncertainties were in themselves a cause for concern.
“The most alarming thing about the increase of CO2 is how little is
actually known about it,” the report declared, before warning that
very little consideration had been given to “man’s manipulation of
the environment.” While “the checks and balances are numerous, there
are not enough data to evaluate them with certainty,” it continued.
“The present liberation of such large amounts of fossil carbon in
such a short time is unique in the history of the earth,” the report
stated, “and there is no guarantee that past buffering mechanisms
are really adequate.”<br>
<br>
This rise in atmospheric CO2 was “worldwide,” the summary reported,
and, while it did not present an immediate threat, would be
significant “to the generations to follow.” The document went on to
say, “The consumption of fossil fuels has increased to such a pitch
within the last half century, that the total atmospheric
consequences are matters of concern for the planet as a whole.”
Relief was likely “only through the development of some new source
of power.”<br>
Moreover, foreshadowing events 50 years on, a consensus view
prevailed among the authors that the continuing rise in the amount
of atmospheric carbon dioxide was likely to be accompanied by a
“significant warming of the surface of the earth, which by melting
the polar ice caps would raise sea level.” <br>
<br>
If all known reserves of fossil fuels were used within the next 500
years, the report predicted that “the CO2 content of the atmosphere
would be four times what it is at present and the average surface
temperature of the earth would have risen by 7 degrees Centigrade.”<br>
<br>
However, envisioning the climate scenario we are heading toward
today, the report argued that “a change even half this great would
be more than sufficient to cause vast changes in the climates of the
earth; the polar ice caps would almost surely melt, inundating many
densely settled coastal areas, including the cities of New York and
London. If the temperature of the equatorial regions were to rise by
this amount many life forms would be annihilated both on land and in
the sea.”<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/005BodyImplicationsofRisingCarbonD.png.webp">https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/005BodyImplicationsofRisingCarbonD.png.webp</a><br>
The participants agreed that more structured research was needed and
the lack of overall information was cited as a problem. However, in
a statement that foreshadowed the impacts of climate denial in the
decades to come, they noted that a more serious problem was that of
“convincing people that there is a problem at all.” <br>
<br>
In conclusion, the report underscored that it was “very important to
alert more people, more scientists and more scholars in the social
sciences as well as the pragmatical sciences, to the need for
planning, and the realization that there is an obligation to provide
for the future as well as the present.”<br>
<br>
With this goal in mind, Ordway wrote to Keeling in September 1963,
informing him that a summary of the transcript of the CO2 symposium
was available for distribution. According to Ordway’s letter, 700
copies would be mailed to “persons selected” from the foundation’s
regular mailing list and “a few others” who “might be particularly
interested.” <br>
A list of these 700 selected recipients has not yet been located.
However, it is likely that all the Conservation Foundation’s
contributors and benefactors — including its corporate sponsors
Standard Oil of New Jersey, Standard Oil of California, and
Richfield Oil — received a copy of the publication with its
extensive discussion of “the carbon dioxide situation” and its
declaration that “as long as we continue to rely heavily on fossil
fuels for our increasing power needs, atmospheric CO2 will continue
to rise and the earth will be changed, probably for the worse.”<br>
<br>
It is not yet known if executives from these three oil companies
read the Conservation Foundation’s “Implications of Rising Carbon
Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere” or its 1962 Annual Report. But if
they did, this information regarding CO2 and climate change would
not have been entirely new to them. As historian Benjamin Franta has
shown, three years earlier, in 1959, at an event organized by the
American Petroleum Institute to commemorate the oil industry’s 100th
birthday, physicist Edward Teller warned oilmen that CO2 from
burning fossil fuels caused “a greenhouse effect,” which, if left
unchecked, would result in a global temperature increase that was
likely to melt the earth’s ice caps and raise sea levels. <br>
<br>
<b>Corridors of Power</b><br>
By May of 1964, records show that at least one of the 700 copies of
the Conservation Foundation’s report made its way to the Air
Pollution Division of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare (HEW), which, prior to the establishment of the
Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, was responsible for matters
related to national air pollution.<br>
<br>
HEW produced a draft report that same month outlining “National
Objectives for Atmospheric Science Research” which contained a
section summarizing the effects of air pollution on “Weather and
Climate.”<br>
<br>
The draft report stated that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was
increasing “as a consequence of human activities,” emphasizing that
this increase was raising the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere,
and would lead to “more violent air circulation and thus to more
destructive storms.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-29-at-6.34.36%E2%80%AFPM.png.webp">https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-29-at-6.34.36%E2%80%AFPM.png.webp</a><br>
Citing the “recent report by the Conservation Foundation,” HEW’s
draft showed that fuel combustion by all industrialized nations was
currently adding about 1.6 parts per million of CO2 to the
atmosphere each year. Anticipating warnings from climate scientists
and activists today, the draft goes on to state, “If this continues
unabated, it threatens in the not too distant future (as history
measures time) to increase the average surface temperature of the
earth by as much as 7 degrees Centigrade.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-29-at-6.36.36%E2%80%AFPM.png.webp">https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-29-at-6.36.36%E2%80%AFPM.png.webp</a><br>
“A change even half this great would be more than sufficient to
cause vast changes in the climate of the earth,” according to HEW’s
summary, lifting sections of the text from the Conservation
Foundation’s report verbatim. The prescient summary went on to say,
“The polar ice caps would almost surely melt, inundating many
densely settled coastal areas … and many life forms would be
annihilated both on land and in the sea. Air pollution’s effects on
the weather, therefore, can be significant on a large scale as well
as locally.” <br>
<br>
Although the reference to “more destructive storms” was removed from
the final version of the report, the minutes of a HEW meeting in
June 1964 record discussions that the next draft should “expand and
revise discussion of CO2.” <br>
<br>
When did a U.S. President first learn about the link between CO2 and
climate change? Read Part 3 to find out.<br>
<br>
These documents show that by May 1964, earlier than previously
documented by climate historians, members of the federal government
department responsible for air pollution were aware of the latest
developments in the science of carbon-dioxide-induced climate change
and were actively working to make further investigations a national
priority.<br>
<br>
The final HEW report, dated October 16, 1964, echoed the
Conservation Foundation report’s key conclusions, stating that the
potential effects of pollution on the heat balance of the earth
posed “a serious question.” Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
responsible for the “greenhouse” effect were steadily increasing,
while “only about half the CO2” produced by the combustion of fossil
fuels were being removed from the atmosphere by natural processes,
the agency stated. The final report also referred to the suggestion
that increased atmospheric CO2 was causing a parallel increase in
average air temperatures, particularly in northern latitudes. It
emphasized that, because small changes in average temperatures could
make a dramatic impact on the polar ice caps, the significance of
potential climatic influences was “far greater than our existing
knowledge of these influences.”<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/006HewReport.png.webp">https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/006HewReport.png.webp</a><br>
Despite this fact, HEW’s report optimistically concluded that “the
same scientific and technological know-how which created the wonders
of modern living” would also probably develop a way of controlling
the unwanted by-products of air pollution. An all-important proviso
was added: The air pollution problem was likely to be solved, argued
HEW, “once everybody concerned is fully aware of the need.” However,
fossil fuel industry campaigns against climate science in subsequent
decades obstructed this potential solution.<br>
<br>
The following year, in 1965, the Conservation Foundation’s report —
along with the individual work of Eriksson, Keeling, Plass, and
other renowned climate scientists such as Roger Revelle — would
provide key evidence for a landmark report on environmental
pollution by the President’s Science Advisory Committee, bringing
the “carbon dioxide situation” one step closer to the heart of
government.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.desmog.com/2024/01/30/conservation-foundation-conference-1963-big-oil-co2-climate-change/">https://www.desmog.com/2024/01/30/conservation-foundation-conference-1963-big-oil-co2-climate-change/</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<font face="Calibri"><i>[The news archive - Rush meets Al Gore -
students of media and debate will be thrilled ]</i></font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> <font size="+2"><i><b>February 4, 1992 </b></i></font>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> </font> February 4, 1992: In one of the worst
examples of mainstream media false-balance in US history, Ted Koppel
hosts a “debate” on ABC's "Nightline" between Sen. Al Gore (D-TN)
and Rush Limbaugh on global warming and other environmental issues.
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9rZKJt4ZC4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9rZKJt4ZC4</a> (Part 1)<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://youtu.be/WbC-yWycHfM">http://youtu.be/WbC-yWycHfM</a> (Part 2) <br>
<br>
<p><font face="Calibri"> <br>
</font><font face="Calibri"><br>
=== Other climate news sources
===========================================<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b>*Inside Climate News</b><br>
Newsletters<br>
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every
day or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s
top headlines deliver the full story, for free.<br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/">https://insideclimatenews.org/</a><br>
--------------------------------------- <br>
*<b>Climate Nexus</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*">https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*</a>
<br>
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News
summarizes the most important climate and energy news of the
day, delivering an unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant
reporting. It also provides original reporting and commentary on
climate denial and pro-polluter activity that would otherwise
remain largely unexposed. 5 weekday <br>
================================= <br>
</font> <font face="Calibri"><b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>Carbon Brief Daily </b><span
class="moz-txt-star"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a></span><b
class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> <br>
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon
Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to
thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest
of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change
and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in
the peer-reviewed journals. <br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief">https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief</a>
<br>
================================== <br>
*T<b>he Daily Climate </b>Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*">https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*</a>
<br>
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate
impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days.
Better than coffee. <br>
Other newsletters at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a>
<br>
<br>
</font> </p>
<font face="Calibri">
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only -- and carries no
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender. This is a personal hobby production curated by Richard
Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for
commercial purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you 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><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list. </font><font
face="Calibri"><br>
</font>
</body>
</html>