If your not careful Erno you're going to blow a gasket!!
I'm telling you it's the CO2, Lone, and it's heating up!!
I'm a Netherlands First kinda girl (self-labeled European Conservative, I know these things can be confusing) and with Trump as POTUS I'm wracking my brain to come to grips with REALITY, and imho that means it makes most sense to disengage from US Dem models for running your country (and 'influencing' the world) and switch to Trump world. Help the guy and his new forming team to apply their prefered models to get crystal clear water/beautiful clean air, then to the extent possible affect Climate, lead an international alliance (..OK OK... we'll pay up...) and especially: make money flow INTO America. Frankly I couldn't care less if he pals up with V. Putin. Godbless ya all. (An may you all keep your doctors or have at least access to one!)
President Trump (just guessing) probably has a trade off in mind for EPA's environmental watchdog function. Some mechanism to replace the practice of naming/shaming/sanctioning polluters, wouldn't be surprised it will turn out a profit incentive for all good faith environmental actors, for those businesses helping to keep America clean.
Great he's taking hands off Climate Change (if Pruitt is to be be believed), putting brakes on pumping money in Big Green Business and 'saving the planet' in general. I think the Trump model will be to only act on a Clear and Present danger that can be 'changed' by human intervention.
Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #138 on: Mar 12th, 2017, 01:48am »
EPA DOJ And SEC wre politicized for the purpose of shaking down corporations for money and slaps on the wrist for real wrong doing. Much of the fines were routed to left wing groups which naturally fell in line when time came to vote. This is not to say vigilance is not needed..as we saw what happened with banks when the hammer of the Glass seagal act was removed by Bill clinton. and we see what happened with the Pharms..Clinton was caught trying to close one of the few remaining mineral companies in the US in favor of a Saudi group using the EPA. That said ..we have a lot of work to do or rather... undo....
Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #139 on: Mar 15th, 2017, 2:46pm »
xxxxxxxxxx BREAKING!!! xxxxxxxxxxx
U.S. environmental group the Sierra Club has asked the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general to investigate whether the agency's head, Scott Pruitt, violated internal policies when he said he did not believe carbon dioxide was a major contributor to climate change, according to a letter seen by Reuters on Wednesday.
Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #140 on: Mar 16th, 2017, 09:51am »
Do human beings deserve this planet?
The sad thing is, I don't think Trump cares....
Great Barrier Reef is dying
By Deborah Byrd in Earth March 16, 2017 Authors of a cover story in journal Nature this week called for immediate global action to reduce the magnitude of climate warming in order to secure a future for coral reefs.
Bleached coral in 2016 on the northern Great Barrier Reef. Image via Terry Hughes et al./Nature.
Great Barrier Reef – the world’s largest reef system – is being increasingly affected by climate change, according to the authors of a cover story in the March 15, 2017 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Nature. Large sections of the reef are now dead, these scientists report. Marine biologist Terry Hughes of the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies led a group that examined changes in the geographic footprint – that is, the area affected – of mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef over the last two decades. They used aerial and underwater survey data combined with satellite-derived measurements of sea surface temperature. Editors at Nature reported:
They show that the cumulative footprint of multiple bleaching events has expanded to encompass virtually all of the Great Barrier Reef, reducing the number and size of potential refuges [for fish and other creatures that live in the reef]. The 2016 bleaching event proved the most severe, affecting 91% of individual reefs.
The NY Times published this map on March 15, 2017, based on information from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. It shows that individual reefs in each region of the Great Barrier Reef lost different amounts of coral in 2016. Numbers show the range of loss for the middle 50% of observations in each region. Study authors told the NY Times this level of destruction wasn’t expected for another 30 years.
Hughes and colleagues said in their study:
"During 2015–2016, record temperatures triggered a pan-tropical episode of coral bleaching, the third global-scale event since mass bleaching was first documented in the 1980s …
The distinctive geographic footprints of recurrent bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in 1998, 2002 and 2016 were determined by the spatial pattern of sea temperatures in each year. Water quality and fishing pressure had minimal effect on the unprecedented bleaching in 2016, suggesting that local protection of reefs affords little or no resistance to extreme heat. Similarly, past exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 did not lessen the severity of bleaching in 2016.
Consequently, immediate global action to curb future warming is essential to secure a future for coral reefs."
According to the website CoralWatch.org:
"Many stressful environmental conditions can lead to bleaching, however, elevated water temperatures due to global warming have been found to be the major cause of the massive bleaching events observed in recent years. As the sea temperatures cool during winter, corals that have not starved may overcome a bleaching event and recover their [symbiotic dinoflagellates (algae)].
However, even if they survive, their reproductive capacity is reduced, leading to long-term damage to reef systems."
Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #141 on: Mar 16th, 2017, 09:53am »
Meanwhile, up North.....
Real-life Hoth is disappearing
By EarthSky Voices in Earth March 15, 2017
Hardangerjøkulen, the Norwegian ice cap better known to Star Wars fans as the ice planet Hoth, is melting and may disappear by 2100. (This article is republished with permission from GlacierHub. This post was written by Holly Davison.)
Any Star Wars fan will recognize the remote ice planet Hoth, the location of some of the most iconic scenes from Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, including the attack on the Rebel Alliance’s Echo Base by Imperial Walkers and Han Solo’s daring rescue of Luke Skywalker after his tauntaun was attacked by a wampa. Not many people, however, would know that those legendary scenes were filmed on a Norwegian ice cap called Hardangerjøkulen.
When the movie was filmed in 1980, the crew had to cope with subzero temperatures and freezing winds. However, nearly forty years later, the real-life Hoth is disappearing. According to a recent paper by Henning Akesson et al., published January 27, 2017 in The Cryosphere, the ice cap is extremely sensitive to small changes in temperature, and therefore vulnerable to climate change as global temperatures continue to increase.
Akesson explains in an article for ScienceDirect that due to increasing temperatures, it is feasible that Hardangerjøkulen could fully melt by 2100 if the trends continue. Once it melts, he and his team maintain that the ice cap will never return.
As the authors of the study explain, Hardangerjøkulen is located in southern Norway and measured 73 square kilometers (28 square miles) as of 2012. It is generally flat in the interior and has several steeper glaciers along the edge of the ice cap that drain the plateau. Two of these glaciers, Midtdalsbreen and Rembesdalsskaka, have retreated 150 meters (492 feet) and 1,386 meters (4,547 feet) respectively since 1982. Akesson et al. base their study of Hardangerjøkulen on modeling, as opposed to measurements or observations.
The team used a numerical ice flow model to produce a plausible ice cap history of Hardangerjøkulen thousands of years before the Little Ice Age. Using a modelled history of the ice cap, they examined the sensitivity to different parameters. They found that it is “exceptionally sensitive” to changes in temperature. These changes in temperature impact the ice cap’s surface mass balance, which is the gain and loss of ice from a glacier system.
The possible disappearance of Hardangerjøkulen has many implications, including impacting Norway’s tourism and hydropower industries. 99 percent of all power production in Norway comes from hydropower, which depends on glaciers’ water storage and seasonal water flow. Glaciers help contribute to water reservoirs used for the hydropower, and Norway itself contains nearly half of the reservoir capacity in Europe.
The ice cap is also a popular destination for hiking and glacier walking, as well as for Star Wars fans hoping to visit the location of Hoth scenes.
Local residents have remarked on noticeable differences in Hardangerjøkulen. Grete Hovelsrud, a senior researcher at the Nordland Research Institute and vice-president of the Norwegian Scientific Academy for Polar Research, told GlacierHub that the potential loss of Hardangerjøkulen is “very sad.” She added: "It is such a beautiful place. I skied across it last spring, and it really feels like being on top of the world."
Bottom line: The Norwegian glacier Hardangerjøkulen, known to Star Wars fans as the ice planet Hoth, is melting and may disappear by 2100.
"After a season that saw temperatures soar at the North Pole, the Arctic has less sea ice at winter's end than ever before in nearly four decades of satellite measurements.
The extent of ice cover --- a record low for the third straight year --- is another indicator of the effects of global warming on the Arctic, a region that is among the hardest hit by climate change, scientists said.
'This is just another exclamation point on the overall loss of Arctic sea ice coverage that we've been seeing,' said Mark Serreze, the director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, a government-backed research agency in Boulder, Colo. 'We're heading for summers with no sea ice coverage at all.
Dr. Serreze said that such situation, which would leave nothing but open ocean in summer until fall freeze-up begins, could occur by 2030, although many scientists say it may not happen for a decade or two after that.
The melting of sea ice does not raise sea levels, but loss of ice coverage can disrupt ecosystems. For example, it can affect the timing of blooms of phytoplankton, the microscopic organisms at the bottom of the food chain."
quote: Photos Show Thinner Ice, And Less of It, At North Pole - By Henry Fountain, NYT's NATIONAL Thursday, March 23, 2017
Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #143 on: Mar 24th, 2017, 3:21pm »
PAGE 1 OF 2
Not surprising that Trump rolls his eyes when talking about the Paris Climate Accord. The next fifty years will be interesting, to say the least.....
Scientists made a detailed “roadmap” for meeting the Paris climate goals. It’s eye-opening.
by Brad Plumer Mar 24, 2017
Where we’re going, we definitely need a roadmap.
In 2015, the world’s governments met in Paris and agreed to keep global warming below 2°C, to avoid the very worst risks of a hotter planet. See here for background on why: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/22/5551004/two-degrees , but that’s the goal. For context, the planet’s warmed ~1°C since the 19th century.
One problem with framing the goal this way, though, is that it’s maddeningly abstract. What does staying below 2°C entail? Papers on this topic usually drone on about a “carbon budget” — the total amount of CO2 humans can emit this century before we likely bust past 2°C — and then debate how to divvy up that budget among nations. There’s a lot of math involved. It’s eye-glazing, and hard to translate into actual policy. It’s also a long-term goal, a distant target, easy for policymakers to shrug off.
So, not surprisingly, countries have thus far responded by putting forward a welter of vague pledges on curbing emissions that are hard to compare and definitely don’t add up to staying below 2°C. Everyone agrees more is needed, but there’s lots of uncertainty as to what “more” means. Few people grasp how radically — or how quickly — we’d have to revamp the global economy to meet the Paris climate goals.
Surely there’s a better, more concrete way to think about what’s required here. And a new study out today tries to do just that. Fair warning: It’s jaw-dropping.
A simple (but daunting!) road map for staying below 2°C In a new paper for Science, a group of European researchers lay out a more vivid way to frame the climate challenge — with details on what would have to happen in each of the next three decades if we want to stay well below 2°C.
They start with the big picture: To hit the Paris climate goals without geoengineering, the world has to do three broad (and incredibly ambitious) things:
1) Global CO2 emissions from energy and industry have to fall by half in each decade. That is, in the 2020s, the world cuts emissions in half. Then we do it again in the 2030s. Then we do it again in the 2040s. It’s simple but staggering. They dub this the “carbon law.” Lead author Johan Rockström told me they were thinking of an analogy to Moore’s law for transistors, and we’ll see why.
2) Net emissions from land use — i.e., from agriculture and deforestation — have to fall steadily to zero by 2050. This would need to happen even as the world population grows and we’re feeding ever more people.
3) Technologies to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere have to start scaling up massively, until we’re artificially pulling 5 gigatons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere by 2050 — nearly double what all the world’s trees and soils already do.
(Rockstrom et al, 2017)
“It’s way more than adding solar or wind,” says Rockström. “It’s rapid decarbonization, plus a revolution in food production, plus a sustainability revolution, plus a massive engineering scale-up [for carbon removal].”
So, uh, how do we cut CO2 emissions in half, then half again, then half again? Here, the authors lay out a sample “roadmap” of what specific actions the world would have to take each decade, based on current research. This isn’t the only path for making big CO2 cuts, but it gives a sense of the sheer scale and speed required: 2017-2020: All countries would prepare for the herculean task ahead by laying vital policy groundwork. Like: scrapping the $500 billion per year in global fossil fuel subsidies. Zeroing out investments in any new coal plants, even in countries like India and Indonesia. All major nations commit to going carbon-neutral by 2050 and put in place policies — like carbon pricing or clean electricity standards — that point down that path. “By 2020,” the paper adds, “all cities and major corporations in the industrialized world should have decarbonization strategies in place.”
Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #144 on: Mar 24th, 2017, 3:27pm »
2020-2030: Now the hard stuff begins! In this decade, carbon pricing would expand to cover most aspects of the global economy, averaging around $50 per ton (far higher than seen almost anywhere today) and rising. Aggressive energy efficiency programs ramp up. Coal power is phased out in rich countries by the end of the decade and is declining sharply elsewhere. Leading cities like Copenhagen are going totally fossil fuel free. Wealthy countries no longer sell new combustion engine cars by 2030, and transportation gets widely electrified, with many short-haul flights replaced by rail.
In addition, spending on clean energy research increases by “an order of magnitude” this decade, with a sustained focus on developing new batteries, drastically reducing the cost of carbon capture and storage (CCS), and perfecting low-carbon processes for producing steel and concrete, plus improving smart grids, greener aircraft systems, and sustainable urbanization techniques.
Meanwhile, efforts to start pulling carbon dioxide out of the air start this decade. That means reforesting degraded land and deploying technologies such as direct-air capture or bioenergy with CCS to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. By 2030, we’d need to be removing 100 to 500 megatons of CO2 each year and have a sense of how to scale up.
2030-2040: By this decade, hopefully, we’re reaping the fruits of major technological advances in clean energy. Leading countries like Denmark and Sweden should now have completely carbon-free grids and have electrified virtually all of their transport, heating, and industry. Cars with internal combustion engines “will have become rare on roads worldwide.” (Let that sink in.) Aircraft will be almost entirely powered by carbon-neutral fuels, say, biofuels or hydrogen. New building construction will be largely carbon-neutral, by using emissions-free methods for steel and concrete or through other techniques. And “radical new energy generation solutions will enter the market.”
Meanwhile, we’d need to be sucking about 1 to 2 gigatons of CO2 from the air each year, with a heavy R&D effort on expanding that further.
2040-2050: By the early 2040s, major European countries are close to carbon-neutral, and the rest of the world is moving toward that goal by the end of the decade. Electricity grids are nearly entirely carbon-free: “Natural gas still provides some back up energy, but CCS ensures its carbon footprint is limited. Modular nuclear reactors may contribute to the energy mix in some places.” Lower-income countries are still using some fossil fuels, and the world is still emitting a small bit of CO2 in 2050 (about one-eighth the amount of today), but work continues on eventually phasing that out.
Finally, by 2050, we’d need to be removing more than 5 gigatons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere. It’s possible this is simply impractical — if we tried to do that all by burning biomass for energy and sequestering the resulting carbon (a “negative emissions” process), we might well run into serious land constraints that hinder agriculture. If, in the 2020s, we realize this will be the case, then we’ll have to revamp the road map to cut CO2 emissions from energy and industry even faster.
The paper also notes that the precise details of any road map will be tentative — after all, the nature of unpredictable technological change means it’s difficult to say what the world will look like in 2030 or 2040 or 2050. So policymakers will need to meet regularly, take stock of where they are, and revise as needed. This road map is staggering. That’s the point. It’d be entirely understandable to look at this all and say, “That’s insane.” Phasing out sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2030? Carbon-neutral air travel within two decades? Cities going entirely fossil fuel–free in the next 13 years? Come on.
And fair enough. None of this is easy. It might well prove impossible. But this is roughly what staying well below 2°C entails — at least without large-scale geoengineering to filter out sunlight and cool the planet (a risky step). This is what world governments implicitly agreed to when they all signed on to the Paris accord.
“We wanted to show what meeting those Paris goals requires,” says Rockström. “Up until now, we felt that scientists haven’t been very effective in communicating what these carbon budgets actually mean in terms of concrete action.”
Rockström and his colleagues argue that future UN climate talks should strive to create a much more detailed decade-by-decade road map along the lines of their Science paper, in order to gain much more clarity on what needs to happen to stay below 2°C.
Rockström adds that the road map’s sheer difficulty doesn’t mean climate action is hopeless. “You could just as easily see this becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he says. “Countries start taking these targets seriously and then begin pursuing the innovation needed to make this come true.” That’s what Moore’s law did for the semiconductor industry; the prediction that chip performance would double every 18 months helped guide firms in thinking what they needed to do to make that come true. A “carbon law,” Rockström argues, could do the same for countries and cities and companies.
Oliver Geden — a German climate policy analyst who wasn’t involved in the Science paper but who has criticized scientists and policymakers for obscuring what the 2°C target really requires — praised the broad approach here, though noted that some of the details were debatable.
“One thing I like is that this is not just another global calculation [on CO2 emissions] that doesn’t talk about actors or policies,” Geden told me by email. “I think this should be the way forward, translating [overarching climate goals] into ‘policy portfolios’ and then asking policymakers if they are going to do it or not.”
For example, the paper lays out a specific timeline for deploying technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Most modeling scenarios for staying below 2°C now envision massive CO2 removal efforts, but few policymakers have acknowledged this fact. Presenting them with a detailed proposed timeline could, hopefully, change that. If it turns out that scaling up bioenergy with CCS is logistically impossible (as it might be), then at least we’d come to terms with that sooner, rather than keeping it as an unspoken background assumption in broad climate plans.
Of course, it’s possible that if policymakers really grappled with what staying below 2°C entails, they might come away thinking it’s impractical or undesirable. They might decide that maybe we should aim to stay below 2.5°C or 3°C, and just try to deal with the severe risks of a hotter planet, from higher sea level rise droughts to crop failures, that come with it.
But something has to force that conversation. If this 2°C climate goal is going to loom over every international climate meeting, every white paper and discussion, then the least people can do is take it seriously.
Brad Plumer is a senior editor at Vox.com, where he oversees the site's science, energy, and environmental coverage. He was previously a reporter at the Washington Post covering climate and energy policy.
Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #147 on: Apr 25th, 2017, 2:53pm »
Uh, Mr. President? Excuse me, Donald?
How a Melting Arctic Changes Everything
By Eric Roston and Blacki Migliozzi Editor: Josh Petri April 19, 2017
Eight countries control land in the Arctic Circle. Five have coastlines to defend. The temperature is rising. The ice is melting. The race for newly accessible resources is beginning. And Russia is gaining ground.
This is the first in a three-part series.
Part I: The Bare Arctic The story of the Arctic begins with temperature but it’s so much more—this is a tale about oil and economics, about humanity and science, about politics and borders and the emerging risk of an emboldened and growing Russian empire. The world as a whole has warmed about 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880. Arctic temperatures have risen twice that amount during the same time period. The most recent year analyzed, October 2015 to September 2016, was 3.5C warmer than the early 1900s, according to the 2016 Arctic Report Card. Northern Canada, Svalbard, Norway and Russia’s Kara Sea reached an astounding 14C (25F) higher than normal last fall.
Scientists refer to these dramatic physical changes as “Arctic amplification,” or positive feedback loops. It’s a little bit like compound interest. A small change snowballs, and Arctic conditions become much less Arctic, much more quickly.
“After studying the Arctic and its climate for three-and-a-half decades,” Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data center, wrote recently. “I have concluded that what has happened over the last year goes beyond even the extreme.” The heat is making quick work of its natural prey: ice.
Scientists track the number of “freezing-degree days,” a running seasonal tally of the amount of time it’s been cold enough for water to freeze. The 2016-2017 winter season has seen a dramatic shortfall in coldness—more than 20 percent below the average, a record.
Sea ice has diminished much faster than scientists and climate models anticipated. Last month set a new low for March, out-melting 2015 by 23,000 square miles.
Compared with the 1981-2010 baseline, the average September sea-ice minimum has been dropping by more than 13 percent per decade. A recent study in Nature Climate Change estimated that from 30-50 percent of sea ice loss is due to climate variability, while the rest occurs because of human activity.
Receding ice decreases the Earth’s overall reflectivity, making the Arctic darker and therefore absorbing even more heat. The ice is not all the same age or thickness, although it has become somewhat more uniform. In 1985, about 45 percent of Arctic sea ice was made up of older and thicker multi-year ice. By 2016, that number shrank to 22 percent.
With a greater percentage of seasonal ice, which disappears each Arctic summer, nations of the north have more time and opportunity to explore the resources beneath and within their territorial waters.
THE SEA-ICE LOSS IS PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN’S GAIN. ALREADY THE LARGEST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET, RUSSIA STANDS TO GAIN ACCESS TO SHIPPING ROUTES AND ENERGY RESERVES, AND A STRATEGIC MILITARY ADVANTAGE FROM THE OPENING OF THE ARCTIC.
Along the Russian coastline, which makes up more than half the Arctic total, winds and currents push old ice away from potential shipping lanes and prevent the build-up of thicker, multi-year ice that would leave other parts of the Arctic impassable for longer periods. That dynamic helps bring the Northern Sea Route—shippers’ hoped-for Russian express between Western Europe and East Asia—closer to fruition.
Sea ice, by definition, is already in the water and therefore doesn't add to rising ocean levels as it dissolves. The same logic does not apply to Greenland’s melting glaciers and ice sheets. Last year, Greenland saw the second-largest melt on record. The hot season lasted a troubling 30 to 40 days longer than usual in the northeast portion of the region.
There's enough water locked up in Greenland’s ice sheet to raise seas worldwide by 20 feet. While it may take centuries to fully melt, scientists are concerned that we have a limited time to act to prevent the climate from locking in the ice sheet’s demise.
Life in the Arctic is changing along with the climate. “Green ice” has appeared in recent years. Named for its distinctive hue, this ice is so thin that sunlight shines through, allowing phytoplankton to thrive. Vegetation growth in parts of Canadian and Russian Arctic waters has boomed to from 5 and 19 percent above the 2003-2015 average, according to NOAA. What the change means for delicate ecosystems and fish stocks is the subject of increasing research attention.
In a presentation in November, Johan Rockström, environmental scientist and director of the Stockholm Resilience Center, reached for scientific euphemism to make manageable the enormous scale of these interlocking changes—and who needs to be thinking about them: "Canada, Russia and parts of the U.S. seem to be the Arctic nations subject to the largest, let’s say, set of diverse regime-shift risks."
In the long run, every part of the Arctic food web may have to adjust to the warming atmosphere’s byproduct: altered ocean chemistry.
Oceans do humanity a huge favor by absorbing some atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, when CO2 dissolves into water, it becomes a weak acid that, as it accumulates, may strain ecosystems that have evolved for today’s slightly alkaline waters. The change is happening globally, but cold water “acidifies” more quickly than warmer seas.
Arctic land stores about twice as much carbon as the atmosphere. While growing seasons—which are now either longer or newly possible, depending on the exact location—suck in carbon dioxide during the spring and summer, scientists believe the thawing lands are now emitting more carbon than they take in.
Perhaps the most visually dramatic change in the landscape has been occurring in Russia. Warming temperatures have accelerated the rate of natural underground methane leaks. The gas builds up in the soil, forming mounds called “pingoes.” When the pressure becomes too great, the ground explodes, leaving 30 to 40-meter-wide craters.
Seismologists have begun to install sensors in the Russian Arctic to give advance notice of fields ready to blow their top. These local events are a powerful visual example of how the world is changing in dramatic and surprising ways.
Many scientists who study the Arctic say that there’s simply no way such dramatic change at the top of the world can avoid affecting life below it. There’s already a cliche: What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic.
What’s true about the weather may also be true about the resources of the north, primarily energy and food. For the moment, Arctic and non-Arctic nations alike regularly collaborate on issues emerging at the top of the world. In a sense, they’re haggling politely—for now—over the ultimate renewable resource: geopolitical power.