+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 38
Latest: Dave Pugner
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 6844
Total Topics: 207
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Message icon:

(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 26, 2017, 08:30:25 pm »

Save this. The Pruitt Pro-Polluter EPA will try to make it disappear.  >:(


And file this away for future reference too.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 26, 2017, 07:18:29 pm »

Quickening Arctic Thaw Could Cost Trillions, International Study Says

April 25, 2017 by Reuters

ReutersBy Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO, April 25 (Reuters) – The Arctic’s quickening thaw is melting the permafrost under buildings and roads from Siberia to Alaska, raising world sea levels and disrupting temperature patterns further south, an international study said on Tuesday.

The frigid region’s shift to warmer and wetter conditions, resulting in melting ice around the region, may cost the world economy trillions of dollars this century, it estimated.

The report by 90 scientists, including United States experts, urged governments with interests in the Arctic to cut greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. President Donald Trump doubts that human activities, led by use of fossil fuels, are the main driver of climate change.

“The Arctic is warming faster than any other region on Earth, and rapidly becoming a warmer, wetter and more variable environment,” according to the study, which updates scientific findings from 2011.

“Increasing greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the primary underlying cause,” they wrote in the study commissioned by the Arctic Council grouping the United States, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland.

Arctic warming could have cumulative net costs from 2010-2100 of between $7 trillion and $90 trillion, it said, with harm exceeding benefits such as easier access for oil and gas exploration and shipping, it said.

The period 2011-2015 was the warmest since records began in 1900. Sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, which shrank to a record low in 2012, could disappear in summers by the 2030s, earlier than many earlier projections, it said.


“The Arctic is continuing to melt, and it’s going faster than expected in 2011,” Lars-Otto Reiersen, head of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) which prepared the report, told Reuters.

Among signs of harm, thawing permafrost has triggered more landslides at Russia’s Bovanenkovo gas field in Siberia. Rare warmth and spring floods closed the highway to Alaska’s North Slope oilfields for three weeks in 2015.

Further inland in Alaska, though, there have been drier conditions, meaning wildfires were worse there now than at any time in the past 10,000 years, it said.

Rising temperatures are threatening livelihoods of indigenous hunters and thinning sea ice vital to wildlife such as polar bears and seals.

The Arctic is warming fast partly because snow and ice reflect the sun’s faint heat into space. The thaw exposes ever more darker-colored sea water and ground that absorb more of the sun’s heat, in turn accelerating the melt.

Walt Meier, a NASA scientist who was among the authors, said there was also new evidence since 2011 that the thickest Arctic sea ice, which survives multiple summers, was breaking up.

“Multi-year ice used to be a big consolidated pack. It’s almost like a big thick ice cube versus a bunch of crushed ice. When you warm the water, the crushed ice melts a lot quicker,” he told Reuters.

Among recommendations, the report said Arctic states and those interested in the region “should lead … global efforts for an early, ambitious and full implementation” of a Paris Agreement in 2015 among almost 200 nations to limit warming.

Reiersen at AMAP said that appeal for action was similar to ones issued in the past by Arctic governments. The eight Arctic Council nations are due to hold a meeting of foreign ministers in Fairbanks, Alaska, on May 11.

But it is unclear if the scientists’ advice will be heeded in the conclusions of the U.S.-led meeting.

Trump threatened in his campaign to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and has sometimes tweeted that global warming is a hoax, preferring to bolster the U.S. fossil fuel industry. (Reporting by Alister Doyle; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.


If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money." - Professor Guy McPherson
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 24, 2017, 05:54:33 pm »

True. You folks in Alaska will never have a heat problem. The Floridians, howevah, on the off chance that WW3 doesn't break out before that, are STILL in for a WORLD of hurt long before the rest of us.  ;D

Florida is NOT a good choice as a Retirement Collapse Hole!

If you want to play golf for a few X-tra years before you go personally EXTINCT, we have some decent links here in the Matanuska-Susitna River Valley.   

Palmer, AK Golf Course
I can get there on my Ewz!



Check out this economic info from Prof. Wolff. This guy has more common sense than most economists out there.

In this educational video Richard Wolff, a University of Massachusetts professor of economics emeritus, Marxist economist and founder of Democracy at Work, defines public debt and explains the process of printing money. Professor Wolff also talks about the role that corporate banks play in this system as well as how politicians exploit the mechanism of money printing in order to garner political capital or justify going to wars.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 24, 2017, 04:51:56 pm »

The Weather App on my Smart Phone tells me it is currently 55F on my back porch.  So at least for today when I go out to smoke a Cancerette, I won't die from Heat Stroke.

I got more proximal Death Vectors on my plate to worry about at the moment.

1- My own personal Health issues will kill me.

2- The monetary system will crash and there will be no Ribeye Steaks in the freezer at 3 Bears when I run out of the ones in my own freezer a year or so after TSHTF.

3- The Donald will pitch a Thermonuclear Bomb on Moscow because Vlad the Impaler will not give him any more Golden Showers.


True. You folks in Alaska will never have a heat problem. The Floridians, howevah, on the off chance that WW3 doesn't break out before that, are STILL in for a WORLD of hurt long before the rest of us.  ;D

Agelbert NOTE: Republican Climate Change Denying Florida will eventually be swamped by the ocean, not just from sea level rise, but much sooner by SINKING from a DISSOLVING coral base.
There is a God.

How an Argument Led to a Big Discovery: An Interview with USGS Scientist Kim Yates

Posted On April 24, 2017 by Sarah Cooley

Dr. Kim Yates, research oceanographer with the U.S. Geological Survey. Credit: Benjamin Drummond for Ocean Conservancy. (at article link)

The Ocean Conservancy ocean acidification team has spent time in Florida over the past year talking with fishermen and scientists to better understand how changes in ocean chemistry are affecting Florida’s coastal communities and its marine resources, including its iconic coral reefs and fish. On our most recent visit, we interviewed Dr. Kim Yates, an oceanographer with the U.S. Geological Survey, who is an expert on ocean acidification impacts on coral reef ecosystems about vanishing sea floors and how arguing with a boat captain led her to a major scientific discovery.

Ocean Conservancy: Dr. Yates, how does ocean acidification affect coral reefs and the ecosystems around them?

Dr. Kim Yates: The animals that create coral reefs thrive in a particular range of pH and carbonate, which is a chemical they use to help build their skeletons. Reefs provide habitat for fish and other reef life, but the skeletons of reef organisms also naturally break down and make sand. And much of that sand supports a lot of ecosystems around the reef. That sand also helps nourish beaches along coral reef coastlines. Ocean acidification causes reefs to slow down their growth rate, and when that happens, they don’t break down into as much sand that supports the surrounding ecosystems and even the beaches. And when the pH of seawater decreases from ocean acidification, it can actually even cause the sand that’s made out of that carbonate material to start dissolving.

OC: But corals only border some areas of Florida. Why should the whole state pay attention to ocean acidification?  ???

KY: One of the most unique and interesting things about the state of Florida is that our entire state sits on top of what we call a carbonate platform, or rock made out of the same material as coral skeletons. We don’t know how ocean acidification is going to affect the bedrock that supports our entire state. When ocean acidification decreases the pH of seawater, it can cause that carbonate material to dissolve. So this problem of ocean acidification is not just localized to our coral reefs, or to our shellfish beds, it’s a statewide problem for Florida.

OC: What inspired you to look at Florida’s bedrock and sand, and not just living corals?

KY: That research actually started with an argument I had with a boat captain. One day we were working out in the Florida Keys on a reef and I was snorkeling around, looking for a place to put some instrumentation down on the sea floor. And the captain told me to motion to him when I found a good place and he would bring to boat over, close enough so we could put the instrumentation on the sea floor. So I looked around, and I found the spot, and I motioned to the boat captain, but the boat captain wouldn’t come over. And so I motioned to the boat captain again and he still wouldn’t come over. And so, somewhat frustrated, I swam all the way back to the boat and I said, “Captain, you told me to let you know when I wanted you to come over and anchor the boat. And you wouldn’t come. What’s going on?” He said, “I can’t bring the boat over there. It’s only two feet deep.” I looked at him and said, “No, there’s 12 feet of water over there.” And he said, “No there’s not,” and he pulled out the chart, and he laid it on the table and said, “See, it’s only 2 feet deep.” Sure enough, the chart said two feet deep. I had to put him in the water and swim him over to show him there was actually 12 feet of water there.  :o

Thinking about it later, I realized there was either a serious problem with the nautical chart or we were missing ten feet of sea floor in that location. As it turns out, many modern day nautical charts actually combine sea floor or water depth data from decades past. So if you’re looking at a 2010 nautical chart, it might combine data measured by hand from the 1870s and the 1930s and the 1950s as well as modern data measured by satellite. And so we launched a large-scale investigation, comparing all of the historical water depth data to modern elevation data.

Dr. Yates prepares her equipment to collect data. Photo Credit: Benjamin Drummond for Ocean Conservancy. (at article link)

OC: What did your research show?

KY: We discovered that coral reef degradation in Florida has caused a dramatic decrease in regional sea floor elevation. In other words, coral reef breakdown is flattening the sea floor.

But coral reefs and a bumpy sea floor are important for slowing down big waves. When you stand on a beach and watch surfers, they are usually way offshore because that’s where the big waves are. You can see those big waves breaking offshore, and the surfers ride them as they are breaking. But, by the time the waves reach the beach where you are standing, they are much smaller. That’s because coral reef structure and shallow seafloor breaks the big waves up offshore before they make it to the beach. When you lose that shallow seafloor or coral reef structure, or both, those big waves can make it to the beach before they break up. There, they will cause more erosion and damage along the coastline. The shallow seafloor and coral reefs act as a natural barrier that breaks up large waves before they hit the coastline.

South Florida is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise because the highest areas on land in the Florida Keys are only about six feet above sea level. So when you have incoming storm waves, everyday waves and coastal erosion, it’s much more concerning when you’re only living about six feet above sea level. Reefs are a key defense protecting us from ocean waves. Our research is going to help USGS better predict how these changes are going to affect these coastal communities today and into the future.

Dr. Yates’ research made the front page of the Miami Herald on April 21. Learn more about how she and her fellow scientists have uncovered the phenomenon of a vanishing sea floor off the coast of Florida.


Bull market in boat houses coming soon to Florida. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 23, 2017, 11:25:10 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 23, 2017, 03:21:11 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 21, 2017, 07:15:03 pm »

The "Value" of recoverable crude oil  and The Unburnable Carbon Quandary

I calculated a couple of years ago that the value of all the estimated recoverable crude oil in all the oil fields in the world was only worth 20 trillion USD or so at current prices. This did not include tight oil only recoverable with fracking, but it's a number that says a lot about the debt level and the likelihood of it ever being paid back.

We are all dead if they even get to burn a tenth of that oil...

But we get to die from lots of other profit over planet  reasons even before that.   :P

Here’s where you’re most likely to die from air pollution

But don't worry, Pruitt and Trump have a plan....
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 21, 2017, 01:00:49 pm »

March 21, 2017

PhDelightful: March for Science Tomorrow!

After months of organizing, tomorrow’s the big day. Scientists and fans of evidence and truth, reality, and not being deliberately ignorant will join together to march for science in 500+ cities around the world. We’ve shared our thoughts on the March along the way. Towards the end of a particularly philosophical piece, David Roberts captures our thinking pretty well: the Koch-funded right has spent decades politicizing science. It’s well past time scientists fight back.

The amount of (digital) ink that’s been spilled on this topic has been impressive, and videos like Neil DeGrasse-Tyson’s are certainly inspirational. But beyond there’s also been plenty of grassroots action that's well deserving of praise. In the last week alone we’ve seen op-eds on the March from across the country--Louisiana, Wyoming, Alabama, Connecticut, New Jersey, Florida, New Jersey again, Pennsylvania, Florida again, Missouri, Maryland, and a third in Florida--featuring a surprisingly strong showing in red states.

But of course, not everyone is as enthusiastic as the scientists and students writing into local papers. The forces of anti-science are upset that their climate denial and evolution denial are being excluded, with someone from the creationist Discovery Institute calling it a “March for Conformity.” Similarly, the Friends of [junk] Science put out a short video with the same line of attack.

The idea that a pro-science event should include those who get paid to cast doubt on science is obviously pretty funny, but since they don’t seem to get the irony of their request, it's also slightly sad. Less funny is CEI’s attempt at being funny, in the form of a new blog post with a handful of so-called jokes about the marchers. WUWT reblogged the post, and its commenters also tried their hand at comedy.

Let’s just say their sense of humor is as keen as their sense of irony and self-awareness, none of which is any better than their sense of what’s credible science.

If you'll be marching in DC, be sure to find the Climate Nexus booth and tell our digital team your story! We’ll be at 15th & Constitution from 10:30-12:30, then in front of the Natural History Museum from 2:30-4, so stop by for your shot at social media infamy.

And if you see signs that say “Don’t greenhouse gaslight us!” or “DeNile belongs in Egypt, not the White House!” or “We are the Knights who say NIH!” or “Think Science is in trouble? Here’s  your sine…” then you’re looking at yours truly and family, so come say hi! Or don’t: meeting your heroes can be disappointing. (Now THAT is a joke!)  ;D


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 20, 2017, 03:05:49 pm »

Antarctica is covered in hundreds of meltwater rivers and streams, and we had no idea this was happening

Tibi Puiu April 20, 2017

The first continent-wide survey of meltwater on Antarctica found alarming high numbers of pools, ponds, channels, rivers, and streams flowing across all sides of the continent. Scientists have always known that the Antarctic Western Peninsula is melting at an alarmingly high rate but they didn’t expect the whole continent to be awash with meltwater during the ephemeral summer.

An enormous waterfall gushes off the Nansen Ice Shelf. Credit: Jonathan Kingslake

700 rivers, ponds, and streams cover the entire continent during Antarctic summer

The team, led by Jonathan Kingslake, a glaciologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, combed through both aerial photography and satellite imagery of Antarctica from when the first very first records started onward. Some of the photos taken by military aircraft are as old as 70 years while the satellite imagery was assessed from 1973 onward.

What they found surprised everyone. During the summer, which corresponds to the Northern latitude winter, an extensive network of some 700 rivers, channels, and streams pop up. Some of these meltwater flows occur even at southern latitudes where scientists thought liquid water couldn’t flow. In some cases, some parts of the water network had existed for decades.

The scale of the summer melting is staggering. This photo was taken by NASA’s Landsat 4 satellite. We’re looking at 520 square miles of East Antarctica’s Amery Ice Shelf. Credit: NASA.

It’s not clear yet from the data whether the meltwater rivers have been growing. Follow-up observations might reveal more but, for now, there’s no reason to think the Antarctic summer springs and rivers have been growing, Kingslake said.
According to the survey which was documented in two papers published in the journal Nature (one and two), some of the meltwater bodies can grow to gargantuan proportions. Some ponds were 50 miles long, fed by streams which carried as much water as the Hudson river. There are even waterfalls such as the one where meltwater drains into the ocean at the edge of the Nansen Ice Shelf. You can see amazing footage of the drainage system in question below.

There are various mechanisms through which the meltwater network forms during the Antarctic summer. Some of the regions form after winds blow surface snow and expose the dark ice below which absorbs more sunlight. Once this happens, a feedback loop is triggered where the melting ice starts exposing more dark ice as the water flows through the snow. In other regions, the meltwater surfaces around rocky mountain outcroppings which peak out of the ice.

(Antarctica graphic at article link)
Much of Antarctica’s ice is littered with seasonally flowing meltwater streams. Each “X” shows where an individual drainage system was identified. Until recently, scientists used to think these features are confined to the northern Antarctic Peninsula, on the upper left of the map. Credit: Nature, 2017.

Because the water freezes back once the temperature takes a dip, it’s not thought that the meltwater has a considerable influence on Antarctic ice levels. However, as average temperatures continue to rise, meltwater will only get more widespread, potentially threatening the integrity of ice shelves. The 12,000-year-old Larsen Ice Shelf famously collapsed due to warm water beneath. Other ice shelves might meet a similar fate according to some climate models. If more collapse, inland glaciers currently blocked by the ice shelves could be free to migrate to the open ocean, where they’d melt and rise the sea level.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 18, 2017, 07:06:27 pm »

Eddie : Wow. Hmm. Bring it on

And not a moment too soon.   8)

NASA snaps picture of huge crack in Greenland ice shelf

Mihai Andrei April 17, 2017

An unexpected crack has emerged across a giant Greenland glacier, raising concerns that a big chunk of the glacier might splinter off into the ocean.

Image credits: NASA.

Petermann Glacier is a large glacier located in North-West Greenland. It consists of a 70 km (43 mi) long and 15 km (9.3 mi) wide floating ice tongue with a thickness varying from 600 m (2,000 ft) at its grounding line to about 30–80 metres (98–262 ft) at its front. The glacier was first monitored from 2002 through 2009, when a series of satellite images showed that several rifts and cracks were starting to emerge on the glacier, largely due to rising temperatures. A large chunk estimated to be 100 square miles (260 km2) calved in 2010, and now, scientists are worried about a new such event — or potentially, an even larger one. If the two were to merge, then they could break off more than half of the iceberg.

“Last week, an ice sheet covering 100 square miles broke off Greenland,” then-Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said of the 2010 calving. “This giant ice island is more than four times the size of Manhattan. It is the largest piece of Arctic ice to break free in nearly half a century.”

Researchers working with NASA as part of the IceBridge operation captured the photo above, clearly showing that a new rift has opened near the center of the glacier’s floating ice shelf — relatively close to another, even larger rift which is slowly extending towards the glacier’s center. This new crack is quite bizarre, especially due to its location.

The crack’s estimated depth. Image credits: NASA.

New cracks typically emerge on the extremity of the iceberg, as it interacts with the warmer water and partially starts to melt. But this one is very close to the center of the glacier, suggesting a different mechanism is to blame here. At the moment, it’s not clear what this mechanism is, though Stef Lhermitte, an associate professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands who discovered the crack, suggests the cause might be warmer weather beneath the glacier.

It’s also not clear whether or not the glacier will calve but if it does, the resulting chunk will likely be approximately 50 to 70 square miles in size (130 – 180 square km). This would not raise sea levels as the ice is already floating on the surface of water but it would make room for new ice to begin flowing into the sea which could increase sea levels slightly.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 18, 2017, 01:36:28 pm »

2017-04-16 - Global storm intensity rising with wrong seasons in wrong places:

I just watched that video. AZ. This guy detailed a bunch of accurate information on increasing storm cell intensity throughout the world and then TOTALLY FAILED to understand that the ONLY REASON storm cell intensity increases is BECAUSE of EXTRA FREE ENERGY IN THE ATMOSPHERE! Extra free energy is EXCLUSIVELY the result of an INCREASE in average global temperatures! It's totally irrational, as well as disingenuous, to connect this with a "mini ice age".

2015 was hotter and 2016 is the hottest year yet:

AZ, this "new mini ice age" guy is a lying propagandist BULLSHIT ARTIST. Every news item he posted in his video, INCLUDING the cold waves clashing with heat waves, is a GLOBAL WARMING indicator, not a cooling indicator.

The guy that made that video is one of THESE BASTARDS:

He needs to get the SAME MESSAGE recently given to Trump:

'First Protest in Space' Slams Trump With Astronaut's Famous Quote

As President Donald Trump takes aim at Earth science with his proposed NASA cuts, the Autonomous Space Agency Network (ASAN) has launched the "first protest in space."


The independent space agency, which advocates for DIY space exploration, launched a weather balloon 90,000 feet above Earth carrying a rude tweet directed at Trump's frequently used Twitter handle, literally taking the act of protesting the president to new heights:

"@realDonaldTrump LOOK AT THAT, YOU SON OF A B I T C H"

The balloon lifted off on April 12, or Yuri's Night, named for Yuri Gagarin, the first human to launch into space.

The missive was in reference to the words of the late Edgar Mitchell, NASA astronaut and sixth person to walk on the moon, who once said about his humbling experience in space:

"From out there on the Moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, 'Look at that, you son of a b i t c h.'"

ASAN's feat was also in solidarity with the upcoming March for Science on April 22, Earth Day.

In case you are wondering, it does not actually cost that much to send a tweet to space. The whole operation only set back ASAN $750 for two helium tanks, 160 cubic feet of helium, a camera and a balloon.

Trump's reaction, if he were to see the suborbital slam, is sure to be priceless.  

Watch the whole execution here:


Agelbert NOTE: In other different, but totally related, news, Pruitt needs money for 24/7 bodyguards. I can't imagine why....

Pruitt Requests Funds for 24/7 Fleet of Bodyguards as Climate Deniers    Demand More Action


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 17, 2017, 05:49:53 pm »

Fantastic graphics showing how the Earth works (from space)
How the earth works from space

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 15, 2017, 04:28:45 pm »

'First Protest in Space' Slams Trump With Astronaut's Famous Quote

As President Donald Trump takes aim at Earth science with his proposed NASA cuts, the Autonomous Space Agency Network (ASAN) has launched the "first protest in space."


The independent space agency, which advocates for DIY space exploration, launched a weather balloon 90,000 feet above Earth carrying a rude tweet directed at Trump's frequently used Twitter handle, literally taking the act of protesting the president to new heights:

"@realDonaldTrump LOOK AT THAT, YOU SON OF A B I T C H"

The balloon lifted off on April 12, or Yuri's Night, named for Yuri Gagarin, the first human to launch into space.

The missive was in reference to the words of the late Edgar Mitchell, NASA astronaut and sixth person to walk on the moon, who once said about his humbling experience in space:

"From out there on the Moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, 'Look at that, you son of a b i t c h.'"

ASAN's feat was also in solidarity with the upcoming March for Science on April 22, Earth Day.

In case you are wondering, it does not actually cost that much to send a tweet to space. The whole operation only set back ASAN $750 for two helium tanks, 160 cubic feet of helium, a camera and a balloon.

Trump's reaction, if he were to see the suborbital slam, is sure to be priceless.  

Watch the whole execution here:


Agelbert NOTE: In other different, but totally related, news, Pruitt needs money for 24/7 bodyguards. I can't imagine why....

Pruitt Requests Funds for 24/7 Fleet of Bodyguards as Climate Deniers    Demand More Action

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 10, 2017, 01:40:54 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: This October 2016 article is every bit as much required reading today as it was before the Trump Wrecking Crew conned their way into the White House.

The only thing the scientists didn’t mention is that this attitude is not just Trump’s. It is embraced by almost the entire Republican party.

Previously, climate scientists have said these policies show “incredible ignorance” and constitute “an existential threat to this planet.”

2015 was hotter and 2016 will be the hottest year yet:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 09, 2017, 08:47:03 pm »

Climate Change Extreme Weather Events 

Climate Change - Future Change | Know About Weather, Facts, Effects, Climate Condition

Published on Oct 20, 2015

Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time. Climate change may refer to a change in average weather conditions, or in the time variation of weather around longer-term average conditions (i.e., more or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change is caused by factors such as biotic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions. Certain human activities have also been identified as significant causes of recent climate change, often referred to as "global warming".

Scientists actively work to understand past and future climate by using observations and theoretical models. A climate record—extending deep into the Earth's past—has been assembled, and continues to be built up, based on geological evidence from borehole temperature profiles, cores removed from deep accumulations of ice, floral and faunal records, glacial and periglacial processes, stable-isotope and other analyses of sediment layers, and records of past sea levels. More recent data are provided by the instrumental record. General circulation models, based on the physical sciences, are often used in theoretical approaches to match past climate data, make future projections, and link causes and effects in climate change.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 09, 2017, 02:07:52 pm »

April 4, 2017 | Rona Fried | Climate Change, Policy

Climate Denial Is Now US Policy

The impact of Trump’s executive order – which unravels all traces of climate change initiatives in the federal government – is already being felt. Climate Change Denial is now US policy.

An empowered Department of Energy (DOE) is showing the most ridiculous display of bravado – telling its Office of International Climate and Clean Energy to no longer use the phrases “climate change,” “emissions reduction” or “Paris Agreement” in written communications, reports Politico.  Even without a “banned word list,” staff at other DOE divisions and the State Department  are also avoiding “hot-button” climate-related terms. The mission to address climate change has been scrubbed from every relevant federal agency, including the State Department, where it was a priority.

An empowered House of Representatives has already passed two bills: The Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act (HONEST Act) restricts EPA from using anything other than publicly available science to justify new regulations.  Another bill directs EPA’s Science Advisory Board – which reviews and advises on scientific research – to include more members from the private sector.

Climate Change Natural Disasters:
NOAA, which faces steep budget cuts

Interior Secretary Zinke immediately reversed the coal leasing moratorium on federal lands. In response, environmental groups and the Northern Cheyenne tribe filed a lawsuit. The tribe wasn’t consulted as law requires, and “Trump upended a public process intended to stop taxpayer losses on coal mined from our public lands where land is auctioned for “pennies on the dollar to coal companies that reap fat profits ruining our land and water,” explains Bill Corcoran of Sierra Club.

36 House Democrats introduced legislation that declares Trump’s executive order null and void (good luck with that!). The “Congressional Leadership in Mitigating Administration Threats to the Earth” (CLIMATE Act) also prohibits federal funds for implementing or enforcing the order.

Benefits for Oil & Gas Companies Exaggerated

Trump’s move to cleanse the US of climate regulations so the oil and gas industry can thrive not only ignores the “energy boom” we already have in efficiency and renewable energy, it doesn’t make much difference for fossil companies. Although they are always happy to make a few more cents, regulations have had little impact on their business.

13 of the 15 biggest producers state in SEC filings that complying with Obama’s regulations had no impact on operations or their financial condition. The other two say they spend less than 3% of revenue on complying, reports Reuters.

So, In exchange for more pollution, drillers make a bit more money. Instead of dropping 28% (the US pledge to the Paris Climate Agreement), US carbon emissions will likely remain flat through 2025, according to one analysis.  But Trump is just getting started – he can do a lot more damage, potentially eliminating tax credits for renewable energy, ignoring the new Montreal Protocol commitment to phase out HFCs, watering down fuel economy vehicle standards, etc.

Details of the Executive Order:

◾rescinds President Obama’s Climate Action Plan – his comprehensive template that guided policy

◾directs the EPA to begin the repeal process of the Clean Power Plan, which cuts emissions from power plants 32% by 2030 – the largest single source of US emissions. It also repeals emissions standards for new power plants. Fact: every industry has pollution controls Except power plants!

◾eliminates regulations that would cut methane emissions from oil and fracking on public land 40% by 2025. Fact: these emissions could easily be captured and sold profitably, but the industry refuses, losing natural gas worth $330 million a year. These emissions make natural gas as bad as coal.

◾lifts the moratorium on new coal mining leases on federal land. Fact: in the last few auctions no company even bid!

◾federal agencies no longer have to cut their own emissions – the goal of 42% by 2025 is gone. They also don’t have to boost use of renewable energy – the goal of using 30% renewables for ALL energy by 2025 is gone.

◾Obama’s visionary order is gone: federal agencies had to establish standards to that development projects have a “net benefit” for our nation’s land, water and wildlife.

◾federal agencies no longer have to consider climate ramifications when planning infrastructure investments or make sure those projects can withstand climate change. They no longer have to incorporate sea level rise projections into planning and construction along US coasts, for example.

◾repeals Obama’s order to publish annual federal subsidies for fossil fuels.

◾repeals requirement for Defense Department to include climate change risks in national security strategies and policies.

◾Every federal agency must identify all regulations and policies that could possibly slow the growth of fossil energy production and develop plans to deal with that in the next 170 days.

While Obama’s executive orders are now repealed, rescinding EPA regulations like the Clean Power Plan and methane emissions won’t be easy. The EPA will have to take the same steps of public hearings and comment periods as Obama’s EPA did to develop the rules in the first place. With the long list of policies Trump wants thrown out, his administration will also be tied up in lawsuits for years.

Lawsuit Filed Against Keystone Pipeline

When Trump gave the State Department 60 days to issue a permit for the Keystone Pipeline, seven environmental groups filed suit.  US law requires an up-to-date comprehensive environmental review that accounts for potential threats to the climate, water resources, wildlife, and communities along the pipeline route.

The biggest threat to the pipeline could come from Nebraska – which never gave TransCanada a permit for a route through the state.  The decision could take up to a year and could easily be denied because of renewed lawsuits from landowners that don’t want a foreign company bullying them with eminent domain. The route also cuts through Sioux treaty lands and is near several other tribal reservations, all of whom say they haven’t been consulted. Meanwhile, a University of Nebraska study projects 91 significant spills from Keystone along its 1,179-mile route.

States Fight Back

17 states plus Washington DC, 5 cities and 1 county have formed a coalition to take legal action. “We’re very confident the EPA can’t simply dismantle the Clean Power Plan and leave nothing in its place,” says New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

The states: New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii. The cities: New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boulder, South Miami and Broward County, Florida.

Members of the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda sent an open letter to Trump saying they represent over 41 million Americans in 75 cities: “Climate change is both the greatest single threat we face, and our greatest economic opportunity for our nation.” After affirming their commitment to taking every possible action, they say,  “We are standing up for Americans harmed by climate change: coastal residents confronting erosion and sea level rise; young and old suffering from worsening air pollution and at risk from extreme heatwaves; mountain residents engulfed by wildfires; farmers struggling at harvest time due to drought; and communities across our nation challenged by extreme weather.”

“There is no question that to act on climate is to act in our best economic interests. Through expanded climate policies, we have grown jobs and expanded our economies while cleaning our air. This Order moves our nation in the wrong direction and puts American prosperity at risk,”  state West Coast governors and mayors of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles.

60% of the US pledge in the Paris Climate Agreement can be met by states and business leaders, says the Sierra Club. The Clean Power Plan alone would have met 15% of the goal to reduce greenhouse gases 28% by 2025.


Agelbert NOTE: The Fossil Fuel Industry Business Model is now US Policy. Have a nice day.

Now for some prophecy about Earth in the year 2114 and the Biosphere:   

4K | Biosphere Full - Director's Extended Cut

Biosphere | Broadcast TV version - Remastered Picture and Sound with New Unreleased Footage.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 08, 2017, 02:35:06 pm »


The forests won’t fix our CO2 problem — in fact, they’ll scrub less than we assumed

Alexandru Micu March 7, 2017

Carbon dioxide absorption by growing biosphere may have been overestimated up to now, a new study concludes. This is due to previous estimates not taking into account the limiting factor of essential nutrients on plant development.

Image via Pixabay.

One effect of rising concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere is that plants have more of the gas — a prime source of carbon — to metabolize, improving growth rates. It also raises average temperatures in cold areas, promoting plant growth. Satellite imagery has shown that while growth has declined in some areas, our planet is getting greener overall.

Climate scientists have pointed out that this increased quantity of plants will be able to scrub even more CO2 out of the atmosphere, forming a natural carbon sink, and helping mitigate our emissions. But they have overestimated just how much the biosphere will grow, and thus how much more carbon it will soak. By testing the effect of higher CO2 levels on forests growing in tropical and subtropical soils, a team from the Western Sydney University in Australia has found that the biosphere will likely grow less than what previous estimates have projected.

Plenty of carbon, scarce phosphorus

The team, led by David Ellsworth of Western Sydney University in Australia, says that forests will absorb around a tenth less CO2 than previously expected, meaning CO2 levels will rise even faster than our current models predict. The main limiting factor opposing CO2’s fertilizing effect is the lack of phosphorous in tropical and subtropical regions, they explain.

To determine how much the biosphere will grow, the team artificially raised CO2 levels in six plots of a mature eucalyptus forest near Sydney, which were growing in characteristically phosphorus-poor soil. The plots were covered in a mix of individuals of diverse species and ages.

ALSO READ  NASA satellite spots mile-long iceberg breaking off from Antarctic glacier

Previous similar work in temperate forests (whose soils are much richer in phosphorus) found that CO2 increase could boost growth by as much as 20%. Ellsworth’s team found no evidence of growth boost in their plots at all. They attribute this difference to the limiting effect of phosphorous (a key nutrient) on growth. The results are backed by previous results, showing plant growth in the past 30 years didn’t see as much an increase as we estimated.

Another (very) limiting factor is human activity. Although some forests will grow faster if left to their own devices, we have a pretty consistent habit of cutting them down. Martin Brandt et al. show that while there’s overall more woody vegetation in Africa, the effects of warmer climate and rising levels of CO2 are offset by deforestation for raw materials and arable land in highly populated, humid areas, leading to a decrease in woody vegetation for these regions. The biggest increase in forests was seen in dry areas with low human populations, but it’s unclear if this makes up for the losses in vegetation elsewhere.

Ellsworth also points out that an increase in plant growth doesn’t necessarily translate to an increase in CO2 absorption and storage by plants.

Where does this leave us? Well, while it would be a nice turn of events it seems unlikely that the trees will clean our mess. So overall the situation takes a turn for the worse. Our best bet, as up to now, is to limit emissions and find ways to sequester CO2. In the meantime, we should also try as much as possible to mitigate the damage.

The full paper “Elevated CO2 does not increase eucalypt forest productivity on a low-phosphorus soil” has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.


Agelbert NOTE: The above is objective scientific reporting. Unfortunately for those of us in the reality based community, the probability of seeing or reading about this in Fox News (and most other media in the USA   :P ) is about 7%.

You say that ain't so? You say that was way back in 2012 and "people are better informed by the media today". 

Most Americans believe climate change is real but the media war on science clearly shows its teeth

Tibi Puiu April 7, 2017

On Wednesday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) gave his 163rd “Time to Wake Up” address on climate change in front of his colleagues from Congress informing them that most Americans believe climate change is real. Whitehouse cited a recent study released by Yale University scientists to highlight the gap between what lawmakers say and do in Congress and what their constituents really think and expect from their elected representatives.

According to the Yale study, 70% of Americans believe in climate change. That might sound like good news but there are a couple of caveats that we need to pay attention to. For instance, the same study found only 53% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity. In other words, one in two people thinks the direction climate is heading is completely natural or impossible to influence, which is just borderline better than outright climate change denial.

Counties where adults discuss global warming at least occasionally. The west part of the country is far more involved in the climate change conversation. Credit: Yale University.

Agelbert NOTE: Vermont is, like much of the west, part of the reality based community.   

What can explain these stats in light of an overwhelming scientific consensus? It’s the media war on science, of course. The Yale survey found 49 percent of people thought that “most scientists think global warming is happening,” when in fact 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is not only happening but is caused by humans. It reminds me of the confusion around the health risks of smoking tobacco. Despite the fact that ever since the freaking 1950s an overwhelming majority of doctors cautioned patients that smoking can kill, the general public was polarized by Big Tobacco marketing campaigns and bogus cherry-picked studies made by ill-intentioned scientists or no real scientists at all, for that matter. Almost everyone nowadays knows smoking kills and it would be silly to think otherwise because you just can’t keep the lid on this kind of thing for too long — but just a few decades ago things weren’t that clear in the eyes of the general public.

So the confusion among the general public is understandable when you realize the country’s biggest broadcast networks collectively aired shows or news covering climate change for no more than 50 minutes for the whole year of 2016. That’s how much time the planet and the livelihoods of millions of species are worth to them. When they do talk about climate change or events under a climate change lens, often there are no real scientists invited to the discussion or, worse, they air climate denialism.

With half the population of the country dazed and confused, this Presidential Administration feels legitimized to undo policies that were actually helping the environment and enacting policies that will make it worse. The most recent attack on climate and science, in general, was last week’s executive order to destroy the Clean Power Act under which hundreds of new power plants would have been closed and replaced with renewable energy. The idea is to make ‘coal great again’, you know, last century’s tech which has been getting killed by the market for years. Reviving coal use is like trying to put back horse drive carriages on the road. Pure lunacy, just like one of the most embarrassing anti-science hearing ever that took place recently. Last week was a ‘good one’.

“Typical for this insider friendly administration. It’s a polluter’s wish list that’s terrible for the American people. ‘Sad,’ as the President would say,” Sen. Whitehouse spoke in front of Congress colleagues.

“The question of carbon dioxide as a polluter has been settled by the Supreme Court. So you have as a matter of law a dangerous pollutant and under the law it must be regulated. So this performance by the Trump show is a waste of time because ultimately lawyers and courts will give ‘the law’ — the final say,” he later added.

Yet again, it seems policy makers act with total impunity against the wishes of their constituents. The Yale study found 82 percent of respondents said the country should fund research into renewable energy sources. Moreover, 75 percent said the government should regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

ALSO READ  Trump orders media blackout at the EPA, tells employees to 'cut climate change webpage'

If you feel justifiably underrepresented by these recent developments, don’t stand idle. Write to your senator letting him or her know that what you care about stands in stark contrast to Congress and Oval Office action. But before you do that, talk to your friends and family about this. A previous study found two-thirds of Americans are worried about climate change but rarely talk about it publically.   


ANOTHER Agelbert NOTE: The REASON Americans don't talk about their worries on climate change publicly is BECAUSE of the media propaganda blitz funded BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. It's called Cognitive dissonance through AGNOTOLOGY.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 04, 2017, 05:48:00 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 04, 2017, 02:45:02 pm »


Arctic ice is turning green, and now we know why   

Mihai Andrei March 30, 2017

The once pristine-white snow of the Arctic is slowly turning green. This phenomenon, first noticed in 2011, was as surprising as it was disturbing but now, researchers believe they know how it happened.

The green shows the area of sea ice where plankton is able to grow. Image credits: Christopher Horvat.

In 2011, scientists had to rub their eyes — twice. They had observed something unprecedented: a massive bloom of phytoplankton beneath the Arctic ice, in waters that should have been way to dark for any light to penetrate them. How then did the light go in, allowing the phytoplankton to conduct photosynthesis?

Using numerical modelling fitted with observations, researchers from the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) found that global warming caused the melting of a significant quantity of ice and this thinning allowed the light to get through and facilitating this bloom. Blooms like this, they say, will become much more common in the future, and will create major disruptions in Arctic food chains.

“Our big question was, how much sunlight gets transmitted through the sea ice, both as a function of thickness, which has been decreasing, and the melt pond percentage, which has been increasing,” said Chris Horvat, first author of the paper and graduate student in applied mathematics at SEAS. “What we found was that we went from a state where there wasn’t any potential for plankton blooms to massive regions of the Arctic being susceptible to these types of growth.”

These are melt ponds on the surface of Arctic ice. Image credits: NASA.

Phytoplankton is at the very bottom of the entire food chain in the Arctic. Every summer, ice retreats and uncovers parts of the plankton, creating a massive boom which attracts fish, which in turn attract larger predators. If blooms happen earlier and more often, it forces us to rethink our entire idea of the food web, with dramatic and as-of-yet unforeseeable consequences.

Due to rising temperatures, ice thickness in the Arctic has reduced by an average of about a metre in the past 30 years. Two decades ago, only 3-4% of the Arctic sea ice was thin enough to allow blooms underneath. Nowadays, almost a third of the ice extent can host blooms.

“The meter decline in sea ice thickness in the Arctic in the past 30 years has dramatically changed the ecology in that area,” said Horvat. “All of a sudden, our entire idea about how this ecosystem works is different. The foundation of the Arctic food web is now growing at a different time and in places that are less accessible to animals that need oxygen.”

Recent climate change may have markedly altered the ecology of the Arctic Ocean, researchers warily conclude.

Journal Reference: Christopher Horvat, David Rees Jones, Sarah Iams, David Schroeder, Daniela Flocco, and Daniel Feltham — The frequency and extent of sub-ice phytoplankton blooms in the Arctic Ocean. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601191


Agelbert NOTE: Please remember the above objective, credentialed science and call BULLSHIT when some fossil fuel industry propagandist tells you how nice and dandy the "greening" of the Arctic is for the biosphere.  AND, right after they spew that bit of Orwellian mindfork, they add to it by calmly stating what a "great thing" it is that our loyal servants, the fossil fuelers  , are ready, willing and able (See Putin with is "first do no harm" statement about running TWELVE natural gas tankers across the Arctic as often as possible. :P.) to make sure that phytoplankton in the Arctic has LOTS of CO2 "food" to eat...

Expect them to try to bill us for the "gift" of CO2 soon, very soon.   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 03, 2017, 05:17:20 pm »

Greenland's Coastal Glaciers Rapidly Withering Away

By Cassie Kelly

31 March, 2017

Greenland's icy coastlines are withering away at a rapid pace. With ever rising temperatures in the region, scientists fear the glaciers may never grow back.

A team from Ohio State University discovered that about 20 years ago, melting on the island reached a tipping point. In this event, a layer of old snow called the firn, was frozen over and the ice sheet growth was stunted. This caused the new growth on the coastlines to halt. Combined with rising temperatures of the sea, the ice has been melting away in large sectors. At the rate it's going, the team said there will be a 1.5 inch increase in global sea level rise by 2100.

According to the study:

The find is important because it reveals exactly why the most vulnerable parts of Greenland ice are melting so quickly: the deep snow layer that normally captures coastal meltwater was filled to capacity in 1997. That layer of snow and meltwater has since frozen solid, so that all new meltwater flows over it and out to sea.

Though these findings are bad news, the researchers said there is no "immediate cause for panic." The Greenland Ice Sheet—the second largest ice cache in the world—is relatively intact. Associate professor at Ohio State, and co-author of the study Ian Howat, said the outer layers of ice contribute a small portion to the greater sheet, and that their melting may even be ephemeral, or seasonal to some degree.

"Since this 'tipping point' was reached in the late 90's before warming really took off, it indicates that these peripheral glaciers are very sensitive and, potentially, ephemeral relative to the timescales of response of the ice sheet," said Howat.

Full article with revealing graphics:


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 01, 2017, 03:36:04 pm »


More than 100 dead in flooding as landslide rips through city

In this handout photo released by the Colombian National Army, soldiers carry a victim on a stretcher, in Mocoa, Colombia, Saturday, April 1, 2017 AP

BOGOTA, Colombia -- Colombia President Juan Manuel Santos says at least 112 people have been killed after intense rains triggered an avalanche of mud and water from overflowing rivers that swept through a small city and destroyed homes while people slept.

The incident happened around midnight in Mocoa, a city of about 350,000 located near Colombia’s border with Ecuador, tucked between mountains and at the crux of two rivers.

Santos arrived at the disaster zone Saturday, warning the death toll could rise as the search for survivors continues.

In this handout photo released by the Colombian National Army, soldiers and residents work together in rescue efforts in Mocoa, Colombia, Saturday, April 1, 2017

Muddy water and debris quickly surged the city’s streets, toppling homes, ripping trees from their roots, lifting cars and trucks and carrying them downstream. With most of the community deep in slumber when the water avalanche began, many residents did not have enough time to climb on top of their roofs or seek safety on higher ground.

Herman Granados, a surgeon at the local hospital, said he believed there are likely more than 300 people injured and that doctors were quickly running out of blood. He suspected the death toll would rise.

“Under the mud, I am sure there are many more,” he said Saturday after working throughout the night on patients.

Witnesses described feeling buildings vibrate as the flood began. Although an alarm reportedly went off, it could not be heard throughout the city, survivors said. Videos that some residents posted online showed vast areas filled with wood planks and debris. People could be heard calling out the names of missing loved ones.

“There are many people looking for their relatives,” said Oscar Forero, a spokesman with the Colombian Red Cross.

The Red Cross planned to set up a special unit in Mocoa Saturday afternoon to help relatives search for their relatives.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 01, 2017, 01:55:16 pm »


As the climate becomes more unstable, the media becomes more silent
How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2016 

Mediamatters.org, March 17, 2017

In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015, even though there were a host of important climate-related stories, including the announcement of 2015 as the hottest year on record, the signing of the Paris climate agreement, and numerous climate-related extreme weather events. There were also two presidential candidates to cover, and they held diametrically opposed positions on the Clean Power Plan, the Paris climate agreement, and even on whether climate change is a real, human-caused phenomenon. Apart from PBS, the networks also failed to devote significant coverage to climate-related policies, but they still found the time to uncritically air climate denial -- the majority of which came from now-President Donald Trump and his team.

Total Climate Coverage On Broadcast Networks Cratered In 2016

Combined Climate Coverage On ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox News Sunday Decreased Significantly From 2015 To 2016, Despite Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change. In 2016, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday* aired a combined 50 minutes of climate coverage on their evening and Sunday news programs, which was 96 minutes less than in 2015 -- a drop of about 66 percent.

*Fox Broadcast Co. does not air a nightly news program

As was the case in 2015, ABC aired the least amount of climate coverage in 2016, covering the topic for just six minutes, about seven minutes less than in 2015. All the other major networks also significantly reduced their coverage from the previous year, with NBC showing the biggest decrease (from 50 minutes in 2015 to 10 minutes in 2016), followed by Fox (39 minutes in 2015 to seven minutes in 2016) and CBS (from 45 minutes in 2015 to 27 minutes in 2016).

Networks Had Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change In 2016. Despite the pronounced decline in climate coverage, the networks had ample opportunity to cover climate change in 2016. As The New York Times reported, in 2016, climate change took on “a prominence it has never before had in a presidential general election” given the stark contrast between the candidates’ views. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had a long track record of climate denial and differed with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on a range of important climate issues, including the Paris climate agreement, the Clean Power Plan, and the continued use of coal as an energy source, with Trump pledging that he would put coal miners “back to work” and Clinton proposing a plan that would help coal communities transition to clean energy. Additionally, there were also a host of non-election climate stories worthy of coverage in 2016, including extreme weather events tied to climate change, like Hurricane Matthew and the record-breaking rainfall and flooding in Louisiana (which the American Red Cross described as “the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy”); the signing of the Paris climate agreement and the U.N. climate summit in Morocco; the official announcement from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that 2015 was the hottest year on record by far; and investigations by state attorneys general into whether ExxonMobil committed fraud by misleading the public on climate change. [The New York Times, 8/1/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16; The Huffington Post, 9/8/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; Media Matters, 3/15/16, 10/7/16, 8/17/16; The Huffington Post, 4/22/16; The Guardian, 4/22/16; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; The New York Times, 1/20/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]

ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox Failed To Discuss Climate-Related Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Until After The Election. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News Sunday did not air a single segment informing viewers of what to expect on climate change and climate-related policies or issues under a Trump or Clinton administration. While these outlets did devote a significant amount of coverage to Trump’s presidency, airing 25 segments informing viewers about the ramifications or actions of a Trump administration as they relate to climate change, all of these segments aired after the election. Examples of post-election coverage include a PBS NewsHour segment about Trump’s selection of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Pruitt’s history of climate denial and ties to the fossil fuel industry; a CBS Evening News segment about Trump appointing climate denier Myron Ebell to his EPA transition team; and an NBC Nightly News report on Trump’s promise to roll back President Barack Obama’s executive actions on climate change. [PBS NewsHour, 12/7/16; CBS Evening News, 11/15/16; NBC Nightly News, 11/9/16**]

**We included citations of specific shows when we described the content of a segment. We did not include show citations for general tallies. We linked to episodes that were available online but listed only the date for those that were not.

PBS NewsHour Was The Only Show To Discuss Climate Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Prior To The Election. PBS NewsHour*** was the only show in our study that examined what impact a Trump or a Clinton presidency would have on climate-related issues and policies before the election. On the September 7 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham discussed “what a Clinton or Trump administration might mean with regards to climate change” with The New York Times’ Coral Davenport and The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney. And a September 22 segment explored “what the early days of a Trump presidency might look like” and featured Judy Woodruff interviewing Evan Osnos of The New Yorker about whether Trump would renounce the Paris climate agreement. [PBS NewsHour, 9/22/16, 9/7/16]

***Unlike the nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC that air for a half hour seven days a week, PBS NewsHour airs five days a week and is a half hour longer.

Tyndall Report Found No Discussion Of Climate Change In Issues Coverage During Campaign. The Tyndall Report, which tracks the broadcast networks' weeknight newscasts, analyzed election-related issues coverage on the major networks’ weeknight newscasts and found no issues coverage devoted to climate change in 2016 up through October 25. The Tyndall Report defines election-related issues coverage as that which “takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.” [The Intercept, 2/24/17; Media Matters, 10/26/16; Tyndall Report, 10/25/16]

Networks Aired A Disproportionate Amount Of Climate Coverage After Election Day. In the roughly 45 weeks before the November 8 election, the networks aired a total of 55 segments about climate change -- roughly one per week. After the election, the networks aired 32 climate-related segments over approximately seven weeks till the end of the year -- about five stories per week.

Networks Ignored Links Between Climate Change And National Security And Rarely Addressed Economic And Public Health Impacts, But Some Detailed Impacts On Extreme Weather And Plants And Wildlife.

Networks Did Not Air A Single Segment On Link To National Security. Numerous military and intelligence organizations have sounded the alarm on climate change’s connection to national security. A September 2016 report prepared by the National Intelligence Council and coordinated with the U.S. intelligence community stated, “Climate change and its resulting effects are likely to pose wide-ranging national security challenges for the United States and other countries over the next 20 years.” And following Trump’s election victory, “a bipartisan group of defense experts and former military leaders sent Trump’s transition team a briefing book urging the president-elect to consider climate change as a grave threat to national security,” E&E News reported. Yet the national security implications of climate change never came up in any of the networks’ climate coverage for 2016. [Media Matters, 1/13/17; Scientific American, 11/15/16]

PBS Was The Only Network To Address Economic Impacts Of Climate Change. PBS was the only network to report on the economic impacts of climate change. Two segments about Washington state’s carbon tax ballot initiative that aired on the April 21 and October 20 editions of PBS NewsHour featured the president of the Washington State Labor Council explaining that Washington’s shellfish industry “has left the state and gone to Hawaii because the acid levels in the ocean has risen so much.” And on the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham reported that 365 American companies “have written to the president-elect imploring him to uphold the Paris accords and warning -- quote -- ‘Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk.’” [PBS NewsHour, 4/21/16, 10/20/16, 11/17/16]

Networks Rarely Addressed How Climate Change Impacts Public Health.

The World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Climate Assessment have all concluded that climate change has a significant influence on human health and disease. And as 2016 saw the first local spread of the Zika virus in the continental United States, Climate Signals found that “climate change creates new risks for human exposure to vector-borne diseases such as Zika, particularly in the United States where rising heat and humidity are increasing the number of days annually in which disease vectors thrive.” However, only two segments on NBC Nightly News dealt with the link between climate change and public health -- no other network covered the issue. In a January 18 report about the spread of Zika, correspondent Tom Costello noted, “Researchers are also studying whether climate change and El Nino are causing certain mosquitoes populations to grow.” And a July 4 report about a massive algae bloom creating a toxic emergency in Florida featured correspondent Gabe Gutierrez explaining, “The debate is raging over what`s to blame for this latest growth, but scientists say there are many factors including population growth and climate change.” [World Health Organization, accessed 3/21/17; CDC.gov, accessed 3/21/17; National Climate Assessment, accessed 3/21/17; Climate Signals, 8/23/16; NBC Nightly News, 1/18/16, 7/4/16]

CBS And ABC Rarely Covered Climate Link To Extreme Weather, While NBC And Fox Ignored It Completely. 2016 saw no shortages of extreme weather events influenced by climate change, with Hurricane Matthew making landfall on the East Coast; wildfires -- which have become a consistent threat thanks, in part, to climate change -- charring more than 100,000 acres in seven states in the Southeast; and record rainfall and flooding in Louisiana causing what the American Red Cross called “the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy.” Yet NBC and Fox never addressed the link between climate change and extreme weather, while CBS did so in four segments and ABC did so in just one segment. By contrast, PBS NewsHour aired eight segments dealing with the link between climate change and extreme weather. [The Weather Channel, 10/9/16; Media Matters, 10/6/16; The New York Times, 11/29/16; Climate Central, 11/23/16; Media Matters, 8/17/16]

PBS Led The Networks In Stories Detailing Climate Impacts On Plants And Wildlife.

PBS provided the most coverage of climate impacts on plants and wildlife (six segments), followed by CBS and NBC (three segments each), and ABC (one segment). Examples of this reporting included a “Climate Diaries” segment on CBS Evening News about how climate change is “taking a toll on endangered mountain gorillas” in Central Africa by making their food supply less predictable and forcing human populations searching for water into their territory and an NBC Nightly News segment about how Yellowstone grizzlies are threatened because one of their food sources -- seeds from whitebark pine trees -- has been decimated by climate change. Another example was a PBS NewsHour segment reporting that “two-fifths of bees, butterflies, and related pollinating species are heading toward extinction” thanks to “a range of factors, ranging from pesticide use to climate change to habitat loss.” [CBS Evening News, 11/17/16; NBC Nightly News, 5/22/16; PBS NewsHour, 2/26/16]

Specific Climate-Related Policies Received Sparse Coverage Outside Of PBS

The Clean Power Plan Was Almost Completely Ignored On Sunday Shows And Received Sparse Coverage On Nightly News Shows. The broadcast networks provided scant coverage of the Clean Power Plan even though Trump had promised during the campaign to eliminate the policy. The Clean Power Plan establishes the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants and serves as the linchpin of President Obama’s program to meet the nation’s emissions reduction obligation under the Paris agreement. Fox News Sunday was the only Sunday show to feature a climate-related segment on the Clean Power Plan, in which Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane claimed that the Democrats’ focus on the plan is an example of how “environmentalism in a crucial way worked against the Democratic Party this year,” because Trump carried coal-dependent states in the election. But contrary to Lane’s claim, numerous polls conducted in the run-up to the election indicated that a majority of Americans consider climate change an important issue and favor government action to address it. On nightly news shows, ABC was the only network that did not air a climate-related segment on the plan, while PBS NewsHour covered the Clean Power Plan the most (seven segments), followed by CBS Evening News (three segments) and NBC Nightly News (two segments). [DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; The White House, 8/3/15; The New York Times, 3/2/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/13/16; Media Matters, 11/29/16]

PBS Far Outpaced Networks In Coverage Of U.N. Climate Agreement And Summits. In 2016, world leaders met on Earth Day for the signing ceremony of the Paris climate agreement reached by 195 nations and later again in Morocco for talks about implementing the climate accord. In Trump’s first major speech on energy policy, in May, he vowed that he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement. But after the election he told The New York Times, “I have an open mind to it.” Despite these developments, PBS was the only network to devote significant coverage to the U.N. climate agreement and U.N. climate-related summits, doing so in 21 segments, while CBS aired five segments, NBC and ABC aired just three, and Fox aired just two. [USA Today, 4/22/16; The New York Times, 12/12/15; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; BBC.com, 5/27/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 5/26/16; The New York Times, 11/23/16]

CBS, NBC, And Fox Addressed The Climate Impacts Of The Keystone XL Pipeline Only Once, While ABC And PBS Failed To Do So At All. During the campaign, Clinton and Trump staked out opposing positions on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport tar sands oil that is 17 percent dirtier than average and would “increase emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming” from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Yet there was a dearth of coverage on Keystone XL’s link to climate change, with CBS, NBC, and Fox each airing just one segment that connected Keystone XL to climate change and ABC and PBS ignoring the topic completely. The networks also ignored Keystone XL more broadly -- airing just four additional non-climate-related segments on the pipeline. [Business Insider, 9/25/16; Media Matters, 1/15/15]

Fox Was The Only Network To Cover The Dakota Access Pipeline In A Climate Context. The Standing Rock Sioux and other Native American tribes, as well as environmental activists, protested against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016, citing, among other concerns, the impact a continued buildup of oil infrastructure would have on climate change. Yet Fox was the sole network to cover the Dakota Access pipeline in a climate context. On the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace previewed his upcoming interview with Trump by saying that he would “ask [Trump] to clear up exactly where he stands on climate change.” After returning from a commercial break, Wallace said to the Trump, “Let me ask you a couple specific questions. Will you still pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which has been signed by more than 100 countries to reduce carbon emissions? Will you restart the Dakota Access pipeline, which the Army just stopped?” To which Trump replied that he was “studying” the Paris climate agreement and would “have [Dakota Access] solved very quickly” when he takes office. ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS did air multiple segments on the Dakota Access pipeline (airing eight, 10, four, and 10 segments, respectively), but none of these segments linked it to climate change. [MPR News, 12/7/16; Time, 12/1/16, 10/28/16; Fox News Sunday, 12/11/16]

Major Networks Completely Ignored The “Exxon Knew” Story. Reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Exxon’s own scientists had confirmed by the early 1980s that fossil fuel pollution was causing climate change, yet Exxon-funded organizations helped manufacture doubt about the causes of climate change for decades afterward in what became known as the “Exxon knew” scandal. The reports prompted the attorneys general in New York, California, and Massachusetts to each launch investigations of Exxon, as well as countersuits from Exxon and subpoenas from members of Congress in defense of Exxon. Yet none of the networks covered any of these developments over the course of 2016. [Media Matters, 9/1/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]

CBS, Fox, And PBS Uncritically Aired Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All Of Which Came From Trump Or Trump Officials

CBS, Fox, And PBS Aired A Combined Five Segments That Included Unrebutted Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All From Trump Or Trump Officials. In 2016, CBS Evening News, PBS NewsHour, and Fox News Sunday aired a combined five segments that misled audiences by featuring climate science denial. Half of Fox News Sunday’s climate-related segments included climate denial. In every instance, it was Trump or Trump officials promoting denial.

• On the September 27 edition of CBS Evening News, correspondent Julianna Goldman fact-checked a portion of the September 26 presidential debate in which Clinton stated, “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real,” and Trump interjected, “I did not. I did not. … I do not say that.” Goldman noted that Trump had in fact tweeted that climate change is a hoax, but she did not fact-check the veracity of Trump’s statement that climate change was a hoax. [CBS Evening News, 9/27/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16]

• On the November 9 edition of PBS NewsHour, during a segment on world leaders’ reactions to Trump’s election victory, correspondent Margaret Warner reported, “Also in question is America’s participation in the Paris climate accord. Trump has called climate change a hoax, and while it would take four years to formally pull out of the agreement, there are no sanctions in place for ignoring it.” And in a report on the ways in which Trump would dismantle environmental policy on the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham stated, “Trump has repeatedly expressed his own skepticism about climate change, like in this 2012 tweet, when he said: ‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.’ Two years later, he wrote: ‘Global warming is an expensive hoax.’" In neither instance did the correspondent note that Trump’s statements are at odds with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused. [PBS NewsHour, 11/9/16, 11/17/16]

• Shortly after Trump’s interview with The New York Times in which he stated that he had an “open mind” on climate change and the Paris climate agreement, Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace asked Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how flexible Trump would be on his campaign promises. Priebus answered that as “far as this issue on climate change -- the only thing he was saying after being asked a few questions about it is, look, he'll have an open mind about it but he has his default position, which [is that] most of it is a bunch of bunk , but he'll have an open mind and listen to people.” Priebus then moved on to discuss the potential nomination of Jim Mattis as defense secretary before Wallace concluded the interview. And during Wallace’s interview with Trump on the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, Trump declared that “nobody really knows” whether human-induced climate change is happening. Wallace didn’t challenge Trump’s claim that blatantly misrepresents the consensus of the world’s leading scientific institutions that human activities such as burning fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. [The New York Times, 11/23/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/27/16, 12/11/16; NASA.gov, accessed 3/21/17]

Other Nightly News Segments On PBS, CBS, And NBC Also Included Climate Science Denial, But Reporters Pushed Back On Those Claims, Noting That They Conflicted With Established Climate Science. Segments on PBS, CBS, and NBC nightly news shows also included climate denial, but reporters noted that that these statements were at odds with established climate science.

• In a segment about Trump selecting Scott Pruitt as his nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency on the December 8 edition of PBS NewsHour, anchor Judy Woodruff reported, “Pruitt is in sync with President-elect Trump on a range of issues, including his skepticism about man-made global warming. Writing in the National Review this year, he said: ‘That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.’ In fact, the vast majority of scientists agree that human activity contributes to global warming, all of which underscores questions about whether a Trump administration will refuse to abide by the Paris accords on greenhouse gas emissions.” And on the December 14 edition of PBS NewsHour, Woodruff asked Sean Spicer, who was then communications director for the Republican National Committee, “Does the president-elect still believe, as he said on the campaign trail, that the science behind climate change is still not settled, in other words, something that most climate scientists say is absolutely correct?” Spicer replied by denying the consensus on human-caused climate change, stating that Trump “understands that there’s elements of man, mankind, that affect climate, but the exact impact of it and what has to be done to change that is something there is some dispute about within the community, not just science, but within the industry.” [PBS NewsHour, 12/8/16, 12/14/16]

• A November 15 CBS Evening News segment on the appointment of climate denier Myron Ebell to Trump’s EPA transition team featured footage of Trump calling climate change a “hoax,” followed by correspondent Chip Reid stating, “President-elect Donald Trump has left little doubt where he stands on the issue of climate change. He wants a dramatic increase in the production of coal and oil, which he says will create jobs. And his EPA transition team is being led by Myron Ebell, a leading climate change skeptic. Ebell, who is not a scientist, disagrees with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say the driving force behind the warming planet is the burning of fossil fuels.” [CBS Evening News, 11/15/16]

• The December 14 edition of ABC’s World News Tonight featured footage of Trump transition official Anthony Scaramucci denying climate change by arguing, “There was overwhelming science that the Earth was flat. ... We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community.” Correspondent Brian Ross introduced Scaramucci’s comments as “a Trump transition official continu[ing] the public assault on established science.” [ABC’s World News Tonight, 11/14/16]

Because hosts or correspondents on these programs noted that the statements in question contradicted mainstream climate science, they were not counted as denial in our study.

Climate Scientists Were Completely Absent From ABC’s World News Tonight … Again

For The Second Consecutive Year, ABC’s World News Tonight Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In Its Climate Coverage. ABC’s World News Tonight did not feature a single scientist in its climate coverage for the second year in a row. By contrast, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News featured five and six scientists, respectively, and PBS NewsHour featured 18.

Sunday Shows Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In Climate-Related Coverage. After featuring just two scientists over a five-year period from 2009 to 2013, the Sunday shows featured seven scientists in 2014 alone, and then backslid in 2015, quoting or interviewing just two scientists (4 percent of all Sunday show guests). In 2016, that backslide continued, with the Sunday shows featuring no scientists in their climate-related coverage.

PBS And CBS Frequently Aired Coverage Related To Climate-Related Scientific Research, While NBC And ABC Did So Less Often. PBS and CBS far outpaced their counterparts in the number of segments focusing on climate-related scientific research that they aired on nightly news shows. PBS NewsHour aired 10 segments on climate-related scientific research, including a segment that featured scientists explaining climate change’s influence on wildfires in Southern California and flooding in Louisiana; CBS Evening News aired seven segments on climate-related research, including a segment featuring interviews with scientists who discovered unprecedented rates of sea ice melt in the Arctic Circle. Conversely, NBC Nightly News aired just three segments on climate-related research, and ABC’s World News Tonight aired just two. None of the Sunday shows featured any segments on climate-related scientific research. [PBS NewsHour, 8/17/16; CBS Evening News, 3/4/16]

Sunday Shows’ Climate Coverage Dropped By 85 Percent

Every Network’s Sunday Show Significantly Decreased Its Climate Coverage. After dropping slightly from a high of 81 minutes of coverage in 2014 to 73 minutes in 2015, the Sunday shows’ climate coverage dropped 85 percent to just 11 minutes of coverage in 2016 -- the third-lowest amount in the eight-year time frame Media Matters has examined. Every network saw significant declines in Sunday show coverage, with Fox leading the way (down 32 minutes from the previous year), followed by NBC (down 17 minutes), CBS (down 10 minutes), and ABC (down four minutes).

Bernie Sanders Brought Up Climate Change Four Times As Much As Hosts Did On ABC, CBS, And NBC Sunday Shows. On every Sunday show except Fox News Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought up climate change significantly more often than the hosts themselves did. ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s Meet the Press aired a combined five segments in which the hosts brought up climate change, while Bernie Sanders brought up climate change 21 times during his appearances on those shows. Because our study counted only those segments where a media figure brought up or discussed climate change, those 21 segments were not counted in this study's overall network tallies.

Nightly News Shows On ABC, CBS, and NBC Aired Roughly Half As Much Climate Coverage As They Did In 2015

NBC Nightly News And CBS Evening News Significantly Decreased Climate Coverage, And ABC Once Again Lagged Behind Network Counterparts. The nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC collectively decreased their climate coverage from approximately 73 minutes in 2015 to just over 39 minutes in 2016 -- a drop of 46 percent. NBC Nightly News had the biggest drop in climate coverage, decreasing by about 22 minutes, followed by CBS Evening News, which had a drop of approximately nine minutes. ABC’s World News Tonight, which aired significantly less climate coverage than its competitors in 2014 and 2015, once again continued its downward trend, dropping even further from roughly seven minutes of climate coverage in 2015 to just four minutes in 2016.

For Second Year In A Row, PBS Aired More Climate Coverage Than All Other Nightly News Programs Combined. For the second consecutive year, PBS NewsHour aired more segments addressing climate change than the other nightly news shows combined. PBS NewsHour aired 46 climate-related segments, while ABC (five), CBS (19), and NBC (12) aired a combined 36 climate-related nightly news segments. However, PBS NewsHour’s climate coverage decreased from 2015, when the network aired 58 climate-related segments.

CBS And NBC Nightly News Shows Have Stepped Up Climate Coverage In Early Months Of 2017    ::)

In 2017 So Far, CBS Evening News Has Already Aired More Than Half The Amount Of Climate Coverage It Did In All Of 2016. In the first few months of 2017, CBS Evening News has already aired about 17 minutes of climate-related coverage, just eight minutes less than the show aired for all of 2016. In fact, CBS Evening News aired nearly half as much climate coverage as it did in all of 2016 in just one week of 2017; this coverage was during a series of climate-related reports from Antarctica for its “Climate Diaries” series. [Media Matters, 2/13/17]

In Early Months Of 2017, NBC Nightly News Has Already Aired Nearly Half As Much Climate Coverage As It Did In All Of 2016. In just over two months, NBC Nightly News has already aired about five minutes of climate-related coverage, roughly half as much as the show aired for all of 2016.


This report analyzes coverage of "climate change" or "global warming" between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, on four Sunday news shows (ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, NBC's Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday) and four nightly news programs (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and PBS NewsHour) based on Nexis transcripts. Fox Broadcasting Co. airs Fox News Sunday but does not air a nightly news equivalent; Fox News is a separate cable channel. PBS NewsHour is a half-hour longer than its network nightly news counterparts, but it airs five days a week, compared to seven days a week for the other nightly news shows (PBS NewsHour Weekend was not included in this analysis). In one instance, Nexis categorized a segment that did not mention "climate change" or "global warming" as being about climate change; because the segment provided other clear indications that it was indeed about climate change, it was included. To identify the number of segments networks aired on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, we used the search terms Keystone w/20 pipe! And Dakota w/20 pipe!.

Our analysis includes any segment devoted to climate change, as well as any substantial mention (more than one paragraph of a news transcript or a definitive statement by a media figure) about climate change impacts or actions. The study did not include instances in which a non-media figure brought up climate change without being prompted to do so by a media figure unless the media figure subsequently addressed climate change. We defined media figures as hosts, anchors, correspondents, and recurring guest panelists. The study also does not include teasers if they were for segments that aired later on the same program. We acquired time stamps from iQ media and applied them generously for nightly news segments when the overall topic was related to climate change. For instance, if a nightly news segment about an extreme weather event mentioned climate change briefly, the entire segment was counted as climate coverage. However, if a significant portion of the segment was not related to climate change, such as a report on the pope giving a speech about climate change, immigration, religious freedom, and outreach to Cuba, only the portions of the segment that discussed climate change were counted. For the Sunday shows, which often feature wide-ranging discussions on multiple topics, we used only the relevant portion of such conversations. All coverage figures have been rounded to the nearest minute. Because PBS NewsHour is an hour-long show and the other networks’ nightly news programs are half-hour shows, our analysis compared PBS NewsHour's climate coverage to other nightly news programs' coverage in terms of topics covered and number of segments, but not in terms of number of minutes.

Research intern Katherine Hess and Sarah Wasko contributed to this study.


Agelbert NOTE: NOW you KNOW why the Trump Fossil Fuel Fascist Wrecking Crew    is in such a hurry to DEFUND PBS. 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 31, 2017, 07:42:53 pm »

NASA: Greenland Ice is melting 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 29, 2017, 09:29:03 pm »


Scientists identify new mechanism through which climate change causes droughts and flood

Mihai Andrei March 29, 2017

As if global warming wasn’t wreaking enough havoc on the world, researchers have found that it is in fact doing even more harm than we thought.    

Visualization of a wavy jet stream. Image credits: NASA.

Turning up the heat

The effects of climate change are so deep and far-reaching it would take far too long to discuss them here — you can read detailed articles on NASA, the EPA, or WWF. Some of the most noticeable effects include amplifying drought and flooding, which were discussed in this study.

Climate and weather shouldn’t be mistaken for one another, but climate does affect the weather, sometimes with disastrous effects. What this study does is show another mechanism through which it does that, uncovering “a clear fingerprint of human activity.”

“Our work shows that climate change isn’t just leading to more extreme weather through the usual mechanisms,” said lead author Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State University in the United States.

Basically, what Mann and his collaborators found is that climate change affects jet stream in a way that “favours more extreme and persistent weather anomalies.”

Jet streams are fast flowing, narrow, meandering air currents found in the atmosphere. They are westerly winds, flying from west to east, and form as a result between the atmospheric heating by solar radiation and the Coriolis force that acts on those streams (the Coriolis force is caused by the planet’s rotation around its own axis). Driven by the contrast between hotter and colder air, jet streams can reach speeds greater than 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) — which is why sometimes faster to travel from Los Angeles to New York than the other way around. But that’s not all jet streams do.

“Relatively small changes to the jet stream can have a large effect on weather and extreme weather,” co-author Dim Coumou, a professor at the Institute for Environment Studies and VU University Amsterdam, told AFP.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 29, 2017, 08:31:26 pm »

Understanding Trump’s Climate Action “Sledgehammer

President Trump's Executive Order rolling back the U.S. climate strategy threatens America's health and prosperity and diminishes America's standing in the world. Kristin Igusky and Rebecca Gasper unpack the EO. (It’s worse than you think.)

Heritage Gets It Wrong on Costs of Climate Action

Economist Noah Kaufman shows how a Heritage Foundation report on the costs and benefits of climate action beloved by the Trump administration reaches false conclusions by cherry picking  its data.


Unchecked Consumption Is the Elephant in the Boardroom

Businesses grow by selling more stuff to more people. But in a resource-constrained future, companies won’t thrive with that model. New WRI research explores this “elephant in the boardroom.”

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 27, 2017, 09:38:31 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: This video covers it ALL. Prof Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a thoroughly credentialed scientist, was FORCED, after DECADES of a career believing we could "handle" the climate change from homo sap produced greenhouse gases, to alter his view DRASTICALLY because of irrefutable empirical evidence he was observing. That's right, he was collecting the data for DECADES until a pattern emerged that shocked him out of complacency. If you ever plan to watch ANYTHING about Global Warming, THIS is the video to watch over and over. I WISH the deniers would watch it and see every argument they have presented  (claiming fossil fuels are off the hook as the main cause) taken apart piece by piece.

'Climate change morphing into an existential problem' with Prof Veerabhadran Ramanathan 

Oxford Martin School

Streamed live on Mar 10, 2017

This is a joint event with the Oxford Martin School and the Oxford Climate Research Network (OCRN)

With unchecked emissions of climate pollutants, there is a 50% probability for the planetary warming to cross the so-called dangerous threshold of 20C by 2050; and there is at least a 5% probability the warming can exceed a catastrophic 60C in about 80+ years.

For the bottom three billion in rural areas, 20C would be enough to pose existential threats. With a 60C warming accompanied by 10 billion population, loss of bio diversity and species extinction, we should ask: whether civilisation as we know it can be extended beyond this century? ???  Is there still time to avoid such catastrophes?  The answer is Yes.   But, we need to reinforce the technological and the market-based solutions with societal transformation. An alliance between scientists, policy makers, religious institutions and health care providers has a good chance to bring the needed transformation.

Oxford Martin School,
University of Oxford

Agelbert NOTE: I do not see the proposed "solutions" materializing any time soon. Have a nice day.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 27, 2017, 08:33:05 pm »


Mar. 24, 2017 6:40 pm

Big Picture Fact Of The Day...

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 27, 2017, 07:46:32 pm »

March 27, 2017

Study Links Extreme Weather Events to Climate Change

Dr. Michael Mann says the way climate change affects the jet stream is intensifying and increasing the regional scale of droughts and flooding.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 25, 2017, 08:12:16 pm »


Defending the Climate in the Age of Trump

Published on Mar 25, 2017

Centre for Sustainable Economy's Ted Gleichman says we need to see the fossil fuel industry as a rogue industry that can no longer be considered just another normal part of the economy

Visit http://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at http://therealnews.com/donate.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 23, 2017, 01:20:21 pm »

Michael Mann The Madhouse Effect: Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump

+-Recent Topics

Nuclear Poisoning of the Pacific by AGelbert
April 29, 2017, 11:26:00 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
April 29, 2017, 07:46:51 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
April 29, 2017, 05:13:29 pm

Sustainable Food Production by AGelbert
April 29, 2017, 05:01:14 pm

Member Interesting, Hair Raising, Humorous or Otherwise Unusual Experiences by AGelbert
April 29, 2017, 04:38:49 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
April 28, 2017, 10:59:35 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
April 28, 2017, 02:21:05 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 08:54:18 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 07:17:14 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
April 27, 2017, 06:32:10 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial